What are Stockfish and Komodo estimated rating for these 5 depths ?

[Ovyron]

Of course you can beat SF 100% of the time, but I'm pretty sure you are strong enough to beat 1500 rated humans 100% of the time too

Not really, at least people on the 1400 range of lichess still can defeat me, and people on the 1300 range can still draw me. That's why I wrongly concluded that depth 1 had to be much weaker than them. I have no idea how lichess rating correlates with FIDE ratings.

Anyway, the things I've been saying were in the times of Stockfish 8 or earlier, perhaps Stockfish Dev's depth 1 is an entirely different thing. But I can produce wins on demand against depth 1 without exploiting repeated openings or using more than 5 minutes on the clock for myself, so Milos's claims that it's FIDE 1500 is unbelievable.

If someone reading this is able, I'd like to request them to teach someone that doesn't know chess and spend 1 hour daily with them improving their chess for a week. If at the end of the week the student can't beat Stockfish dev depth 1 I'll be greatly surprised.

[Uri Blass]

Unfortunately almost nobody want to learn chess 1 hour per day.

The people that I taught chess wanted to learn chess only 1 hour per week but I will be surprised if one hour per day is enough to beat stockfish depth 1 after a week.

[Chessqueen]

Unfortunately almost nobody want to learn chess 1 hour per day.

The people that I taught chess wanted to learn chess only 1 hour per week but I will be surprised if one hour per day is enough to beat stockfish depth 1 after a week.

You are correct Uri, it is NOT enough. Chess is harder than what people think, but there are gifted child, but even if they are 1 week is NOT enough. Talking from my own experience I started to take lesson from an online IM instructor and after 10 months of him guiding me and telling me to get a different chess book every months and testing me on what I should have learned from those books, and providing me with guided tactical positions to solves every week as I progress, different endgames books, strategies books and testing my comprehension of those books every other week, and giving different positions and asking me to take my time and answer what would be the best move to play and explain the reason why to him, anyway after 10 long months all that I have manage to accomplish is to draw versus Komodo 13.3 at Depth 4 in time control of 10 + 5 minutes, sometime I feel like I have wasted my money, but my trainer was very happy that I drew versus Komodo at depth 4. He simply put it this way you started training with me and you were a low 1300 to 1350 at your best and you have learned so much in 10 months which is what he expected me, since I am NOT a genius or gifted person like so many. All that I have to say is that there is so much to learn in chess, that the more you learn the more there is to keep on learning. I will be happy when I could beat Komodo 14 at Depth 5 Time control 10+5 sec increment and it might be harder to do because with every version of Komodo the harder it becomes

[Chessqueen]

Unfortunately almost nobody want to learn chess 1 hour per day.

The people that I taught chess wanted to learn chess only 1 hour per week but I will be surprised if one hour per day is enough to beat stockfish depth 1 after a week.

You are correct Uri, it is NOT enough. Chess is harder than what people think, but there are gifted child, but even if they are 1 week is NOT enough. Talking from my own experience I started to take lesson from an online IM instructor and after 10 months of him guiding me and telling me to get a different chess book every months and testing me on what I should have learned from those books, and providing me with guided tactical positions to solves every week as I progress, different endgames books, strategies books and testing my comprehension of those books every other week, and giving different positions and asking me to take my time and answer what would be the best move to play and explain the reason why to him, anyway after 10 long months all that I have manage to accomplish is to draw versus Komodo 13.3 at Depth 4 in time control of 10 + 5 minutes, sometime I feel like I have wasted my money, but my trainer was very happy that I drew versus Komodo at depth 4. He simply put it this way you started training with me and you were a low 1300 to 1350 at your best and you have learned so much in 10 months which is what he expected me, since I am NOT a genius or gifted person like so many. All that I have to say is that there is so much to learn in chess, that the more you learn the more there is to keep on learning. I will be happy when I could beat Komodo 14 at Depth 5 Time control 10+5 sec increment and it might be harder to do because with every version of Komodo the harder it becomes

Larry what depth do you think that Jorge Sammour should play versus Komodo 13.3 at time control of 10 + 5 Sec increment, Depth 6 or Depth 7 ?

[lkaufman]

Unfortunately almost nobody want to learn chess 1 hour per day.

The people that I taught chess wanted to learn chess only 1 hour per week but I will be surprised if one hour per day is enough to beat stockfish depth 1 after a week.

You are correct Uri, it is NOT enough. Chess is harder than what people think, but there are gifted child, but even if they are 1 week is NOT enough. Talking from my own experience I started to take lesson from an online IM instructor and after 10 months of him guiding me and telling me to get a different chess book every months and testing me on what I should have learned from those books, and providing me with guided tactical positions to solves every week as I progress, different endgames books, strategies books and testing my comprehension of those books every other week, and giving different positions and asking me to take my time and answer what would be the best move to play and explain the reason why to him, anyway after 10 long months all that I have manage to accomplish is to draw versus Komodo 13.3 at Depth 4 in time control of 10 + 5 minutes, sometime I feel like I have wasted my money, but my trainer was very happy that I drew versus Komodo at depth 4. He simply put it this way you started training with me and you were a low 1300 to 1350 at your best and you have learned so much in 10 months which is what he expected me, since I am NOT a genius or gifted person like so many. All that I have to say is that there is so much to learn in chess, that the more you learn the more there is to keep on learning. I will be happy when I could beat Komodo 14 at Depth 5 Time control 10+5 sec increment and it might be harder to do because with every version of Komodo the harder it becomes

Larry what depth do you think that Jorge Sammour should play versus Komodo 13.3 at time control of 10 + 5 Sec increment, Depth 6 or Depth 7 ?

Well, since Alex Lenderman was a close match (maybe a slight underdog) vs. Komodo Skill 21 at 3' + 2", and Skill 21 is basically depth 8 with some randomization and limited book depth, he would probably be favored slightly against depth 7 with full opening book on one thread. Jorge is about a class below Lenderman in rating, but 5x the time limit should offset this, so I would bet on Jorge vs depth 7 but I would bet on Komodo using depth 8 (with a good opening book in each case).

[lkaufman]

In the 1980s machines that did 4 ply full width (plus qsearch) got ratings like 1600 or so in standard tournaments, and today's 1 ply searches, though "smarter", are nowhere near the level of a 4 ply search with even fairly basic chess knowledge of the mid 1980s.

Again you are just inventing stuff. Not the first time. Care to document your wild claims?
Are you even aware how much more SF extends in qs than those early programs? Just looking at nodes search SFdev 1ply goes over similar number of nodes as full width 4 ply negamax. And not getting into how much more tuned SFdev eval is just for material+PSQT (that btw. didn't even exist in 80s), not to mention king safety, all bonuses, endgame knowledge, etc. etc.
SFdev 1 ply is hundreds of Elo stronger than '80s program 4 ply search.

I decided to check this out by using Ed Schroder's "Benjamin" engine vs. recent (July 6) SF dev. Benjamin is a current engine, but based on both its rating and Ed's comments, I don't think it is likely to be drastically stronger at one or two ply than his best work of nearly twenty years ago. Ed, if you read this, please correct me if I am wrong. I know twenty years isn't thirty, it's the best I could do without a lot of work. Anyway, at one ply Stockfish did win with a 76% score in 500 games, about +200 elo, more than I expected but perhaps less than you might have guessed. But when I gave Benjamin 2 ply (vs. 1 ply for SF), Benjamin won decisively, by 146 elo (in same 500 game sample). Based on this, I'm inclined to believe that my 1200 estimate for Stockfish or Komodo at one ply was too low, maybe between 1300 and 1400 would be a better estimate.

[Chessqueen]

Unfortunately almost nobody want to learn chess 1 hour per day.

The people that I taught chess wanted to learn chess only 1 hour per week but I will be surprised if one hour per day is enough to beat stockfish depth 1 after a week.

You are correct Uri, it is NOT enough. Chess is harder than what people think, but there are gifted child, but even if they are 1 week is NOT enough. Talking from my own experience I started to take lesson from an online IM instructor and after 10 months of him guiding me and telling me to get a different chess book every months and testing me on what I should have learned from those books, and providing me with guided tactical positions to solves every week as I progress, different endgames books, strategies books and testing my comprehension of those books every other week, and giving different positions and asking me to take my time and answer what would be the best move to play and explain the reason why to him, anyway after 10 long months all that I have manage to accomplish is to draw versus Komodo 13.3 at Depth 4 in time control of 10 + 5 minutes, sometime I feel like I have wasted my money, but my trainer was very happy that I drew versus Komodo at depth 4. He simply put it this way you started training with me and you were a low 1300 to 1350 at your best and you have learned so much in 10 months which is what he expected me, since I am NOT a genius or gifted person like so many. All that I have to say is that there is so much to learn in chess, that the more you learn the more there is to keep on learning. I will be happy when I could beat Komodo 14 at Depth 5 Time control 10+5 sec increment and it might be harder to do because with every version of Komodo the harder it becomes

Larry what depth do you think that Jorge Sammour should play versus Komodo 13.3 at time control of 10 + 5 Sec increment, Depth 6 or Depth 7 ?

Well, since Alex Lenderman was a close match (maybe a slight underdog) vs. Komodo Skill 21 at 3' + 2", and Skill 21 is basically depth 8 with some randomization and limited book depth, he would probably be favored slightly against depth 7 with full opening book on one thread. Jorge is about a class below Lenderman in rating, but 5x the time limit should offset this, so I would bet on Jorge vs depth 7 but I would bet on Komodo using depth 8 (with a good opening book in each case).

Before I test it against Jorge Sammour I would like you to play at least 1 game at TC 10 + 5 sec increment with depth 6 and one with depth 7

[lkaufman]

Unfortunately almost nobody want to learn chess 1 hour per day.

The people that I taught chess wanted to learn chess only 1 hour per week but I will be surprised if one hour per day is enough to beat stockfish depth 1 after a week.

You are correct Uri, it is NOT enough. Chess is harder than what people think, but there are gifted child, but even if they are 1 week is NOT enough. Talking from my own experience I started to take lesson from an online IM instructor and after 10 months of him guiding me and telling me to get a different chess book every months and testing me on what I should have learned from those books, and providing me with guided tactical positions to solves every week as I progress, different endgames books, strategies books and testing my comprehension of those books every other week, and giving different positions and asking me to take my time and answer what would be the best move to play and explain the reason why to him, anyway after 10 long months all that I have manage to accomplish is to draw versus Komodo 13.3 at Depth 4 in time control of 10 + 5 minutes, sometime I feel like I have wasted my money, but my trainer was very happy that I drew versus Komodo at depth 4. He simply put it this way you started training with me and you were a low 1300 to 1350 at your best and you have learned so much in 10 months which is what he expected me, since I am NOT a genius or gifted person like so many. All that I have to say is that there is so much to learn in chess, that the more you learn the more there is to keep on learning. I will be happy when I could beat Komodo 14 at Depth 5 Time control 10+5 sec increment and it might be harder to do because with every version of Komodo the harder it becomes

Larry what depth do you think that Jorge Sammour should play versus Komodo 13.3 at time control of 10 + 5 Sec increment, Depth 6 or Depth 7 ?

Well, since Alex Lenderman was a close match (maybe a slight underdog) vs. Komodo Skill 21 at 3' + 2", and Skill 21 is basically depth 8 with some randomization and limited book depth, he would probably be favored slightly against depth 7 with full opening book on one thread. Jorge is about a class below Lenderman in rating, but 5x the time limit should offset this, so I would bet on Jorge vs depth 7 but I would bet on Komodo using depth 8 (with a good opening book in each case).

Before I test it against Jorge Sammour I would like you to play at least 1 game at TC 10 + 5 sec increment with depth 6 and one with depth 7

I'm playing in the U.S. Senior tournament of state champions this weekend (online on chess.com) so I won't have time until at least Monday, but I would like to do this. But please keep in mind that although I might have been close to the same level as Jorge nearly twenty years ago, I'm a lot weaker than he is now, the difference might be more like 2 plies depth than 1.

[Chessqueen]

1. For Depth 1 ply, the choice of engine doesn't matter much, I usually quote 1200 as a rough guide for Komodo 1 ply, but I could be off 200 elo either way, this is not carefully measured. But for players with ratings below 1000, we have to weaken it further to give them a chance, so I think it's at least in the right ballpark..

You don't seems to have a clue. SF depth 1 is above 1500. It's not really depth 1, it has full qs included. Try playing open games against it and you'd see.

Rating is dependent on the time control.

Uri you should play a game against Komodo or Stockfish at time control pf 10 +5 sec increment at depth 4 or 5 and let us know how you did

[Chessqueen]

That's exactly why I wrote Fruit and Rybka. It's not about eng-eng matches it's about systematic tuning where one needs sound statistical criteria and possibility to play sufficient number of matches. That was not available before mid 2000's. And that's precisely why first Fruit and than Rybka was such a (quantum) leap.

Yes ... and this trend seems to be continuing with the success of SF NN! Would be interesting to see how much stronger at low depth SF is with an NN tuned evaluation.

Ansari should play a game against Stockfish or Komodo at time control 10 +5 sec increment at Depth 4 or 5 and let us know how you did ?