Better search can help even if you have worse evaluation because chess is not an evaluation contest but the question is if the search of chess programs is really better in the relevant position.hgm wrote:Yes, QueeNy is about 1000 Elo weaker than Stockfish and Komodo (when run with normal piece values).
The point, however, is that it beats Komodo and Stockfish when playing with the Knights in this position. This is the hallmark of won positions; once you know how to win them, it doesn't matter how strong the opponent is. Won positions are won even against perfect play. TSCP beats Stockfish 100% of the time, in KQK. Even if Stockfish uses EGT.
In this case the knowledge is that you should not allow Q for 2N trading. Normal engines, including Komodo and Stockfish, might not know this, and frequently bungle the won game, even losing it. QueeNy has Q=9.5 and N=5, which makes it value 2 Knights above a Queen, and thus avoid conversion to 2Q vs 5N. Given enough depth to recognize the tactical threats for forcing such trades, it will be able to avoid them. Seven Knights is enough to keep all Knights protected twice virtually all the time. N=5 might even be too low, as it now would allow Q for 2N+P trades. This would only hurt when the opponent actively seeks such trades, though, which is probably not the case for Komodo.
Bishops cannot cooperate this well: they cannot protect each other when on different color, and they strongly hamper each other's mobility when the do protect each other. Knights and Bishops also do not mix well, because the protection they can offer is not mutual. So any Knight->Bishop substitution strongly weakens the side with the minors, and results of such games prove nothing about the pure Q vs N case.
So QueeNy is not "the measure of all things", but it does beat the top engines with the Knights in this position, with a much higher score than other top engines would achieve against the same opponent. This was tested with thousands of games. And that is the definition of "being better". Despite their strong search, most top engines just lack the evaluation knowledge to play this successfully. Better search is of no use if a poor evaluation doesn't let you search for the right thing.
All you do is offer (completely uninformed) talk, and, as they say, talk "cuts no wood". It is game results that define reality, and any reasoning that denies reality is know as 'delusion'...
Can latest stockfish beat programs that are 300 or 400 elo weaker in normal chess in the relevant position and also do not have specific knowledge for queens against knights thanks to better search?
The only way to know is by testing and
I do not know because I did not test it.