87% of the poll voted that SF will win Tcec Sufi 19.

[mwyoung]

You are correct that some bad position can be held. But that is not the point! Why are bad positions being played at all.

...

It seems you did not read my post, or did not understand it, or both (there was no time to read all of it anyway before your reply).
Still you had to do a full quote...

Not all positions given by Daniel above were 'bad', but just falsely evaluated as 'bad' (some were even <= 0.70).

I did read it...And they were bad. And bias by TCEC own words. And that is why TCEC choose them to be played.

From TCEC----"you will see some openings where one color has no realistic winning chances and the game is all about successfully holding a draw from an almost desperate position."

Garbage openings, garbage results.

[Laskos]

I do think Daniel Shawul has a point.

One might argue (and, indeed, I have) that since both sides must play the exact same lopsided opening from the disadvantaged and advantaged point of view it should be a wash. If I have a dominant position and win, next time, the opponent has the same dominant position and I should lose.

However, the clear strength of LC0 is in very quiet positions. If we start from a lopsided position, this does seem like a penalty on LC0 because of how it plays.

As further evidence of this disparity, SF abandons NN technology when the score becomes lopsided.

Food for thought.

Was food thought 2 years ago. Leela is ultra-specialized compared to classical engines in playing exactly the game of Chess from the standard opening position. This is inflexibility. And it's a defect, not a quality.

[mwyoung]

I do think Daniel Shawul has a point.

One might argue (and, indeed, I have) that since both sides must play the exact same lopsided opening from the disadvantaged and advantaged point of view it should be a wash. If I have a dominant position and win, next time, the opponent has the same dominant position and I should lose.

However, the clear strength of LC0 is in very quiet positions. If we start from a lopsided position, this does seem like a penalty on LC0 because of how it plays.

As further evidence of this disparity, SF abandons NN technology when the score becomes lopsided.

Food for thought.

Was food thought 2 years ago. Leela is ultra-specialized compared to classical engines in playing exactly the game of Chess from the standard opening position. This is complete inflexibility. And it's a defect, not a quality.

Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings? Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

[jorose]

I do think Daniel Shawul has a point.

One might argue (and, indeed, I have) that since both sides must play the exact same lopsided opening from the disadvantaged and advantaged point of view it should be a wash. If I have a dominant position and win, next time, the opponent has the same dominant position and I should lose.

However, the clear strength of LC0 is in very quiet positions. If we start from a lopsided position, this does seem like a penalty on LC0 because of how it plays.

As further evidence of this disparity, SF abandons NN technology when the score becomes lopsided.

Food for thought.

Was food thought 2 years ago. Leela is ultra-specialized compared to classical engines in playing exactly the game of Chess from the standard opening position. This is complete inflexibility. And it's a defect, not a quality.

Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings. Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

TCEC is much older than LC0. It doesn't need to change its rules in order to give Leela an advantage.

Furthermore engines are tools for chess analysis. Not being able to play in the full spectrum of reasonable positions is a flaw. Perhaps when you play it is only in positions which Leela reaches, but I am personally not that strong a player. Neither is Carlsen for that matter.

[mwyoung]

I do think Daniel Shawul has a point.

One might argue (and, indeed, I have) that since both sides must play the exact same lopsided opening from the disadvantaged and advantaged point of view it should be a wash. If I have a dominant position and win, next time, the opponent has the same dominant position and I should lose.

However, the clear strength of LC0 is in very quiet positions. If we start from a lopsided position, this does seem like a penalty on LC0 because of how it plays.

As further evidence of this disparity, SF abandons NN technology when the score becomes lopsided.

Food for thought.

Was food thought 2 years ago. Leela is ultra-specialized compared to classical engines in playing exactly the game of Chess from the standard opening position. This is complete inflexibility. And it's a defect, not a quality.

Really, then why does TCEC need bias openings. Lc0 was taught to play chess for this unbias position.
That we all know and love!

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

TCEC is much older than LC0. It doesn't need to change its rules in order to give Leela an advantage.

Furthermore engines are tools for chess analysis. Not being able to play in the full spectrum of reasonable positions is a flaw. Perhaps when you play it is only in positions which Leela reaches, but I am personally not that strong a player. Neither is Carlsen for that matter.

I do not want TCEC to change any rules. But some people need to understand the RULES.

Garbage openings, garbage results.

Testing conditions matter!

[jorose]

It has been clear for sometime now that the unbalanced book is very unfair to Lc0.
TCEC does it for the sake of entertainment, but drawing any conclusions from it doesn't make any sense.
This SuFi and last one have been all about who can convert better given a position with a +1 advantage.
If every season is going to be like this, I guess there is no point watching TCEC SuFi.

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

I just took a look at the first 10 openings (20 games) and I don't think they are particularly unbalanced. In fact, I play several of those openings myself. The only ones I find somewhat odd are the French with Ng8 and KGA with Nc3.

Most of the lines are theoretically very well established and see a decent amount of play.I'm not sure where this notion comes from that TCEC has unbalanced openings this season in particular.

I also don't know what such fans want to see, would they prefer even less decisive games?

I am surprized you need clarification for this but here it goes.
These are scores of stockfish right out of book for the second half of the match starting from game 52

52 - +1.31
54 - +1.06
56 - +1.19
58 - +0.80
60 - +1.14
62 - +1.17
64 - +1.17
66 - +1.12
68 - +1.20
70 - +0.80
72 - -0.93
74 - +0.70
76 - +0.66
78 - +1.38
80 - +1.05
82 - +0.83

SF may well be superior to Lc0 but this unbalanced openings prove nothing.
Even SF without NNUE was able to get +7 over leela last season entirely due to the book.

You are citing SF scores from the white side with contempt. We could also cite Leela evals and argue positions are very reasonable and balanced. In either case I am not sure what we are achieving.

[Madeleine Birchfield]

I am surprized you need clarification for this but here it goes.
These are scores of stockfish right out of book for the second half of the match starting from game 52

52 - +1.31
54 - +1.06
56 - +1.19
58 - +0.80
60 - +1.14
62 - +1.17
64 - +1.17
66 - +1.12
68 - +1.20
70 - +0.80
72 - -0.93
74 - +0.70
76 - +0.66
78 - +1.38
80 - +1.05
82 - +0.83

SF may well be superior to Lc0 but this unbalanced openings prove nothing.
Even SF without NNUE was able to get +7 over leela last season entirely due to the book.

Unless Stockfish has contempt = 0 and analysis contempt turned off, Stockfish evals are not a reliable indicator of the true nature of the opening.

[mwyoung]

It has been clear for sometime now that the unbalanced book is very unfair to Lc0.
TCEC does it for the sake of entertainment, but drawing any conclusions from it doesn't make any sense.
This SuFi and last one have been all about who can convert better given a position with a +1 advantage.
If every season is going to be like this, I guess there is no point watching TCEC SuFi.

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

I just took a look at the first 10 openings (20 games) and I don't think they are particularly unbalanced. In fact, I play several of those openings myself. The only ones I find somewhat odd are the French with Ng8 and KGA with Nc3.

Most of the lines are theoretically very well established and see a decent amount of play.I'm not sure where this notion comes from that TCEC has unbalanced openings this season in particular.

I also don't know what such fans want to see, would they prefer even less decisive games?

I am surprized you need clarification for this but here it goes.
These are scores of stockfish right out of book for the second half of the match starting from game 52

52 - +1.31
54 - +1.06
56 - +1.19
58 - +0.80
60 - +1.14
62 - +1.17
64 - +1.17
66 - +1.12
68 - +1.20
70 - +0.80
72 - -0.93
74 - +0.70
76 - +0.66
78 - +1.38
80 - +1.05
82 - +0.83

SF may well be superior to Lc0 but this unbalanced openings prove nothing.
Even SF without NNUE was able to get +7 over leela last season entirely due to the book.

You are citing SF scores from the white side with contempt. We could also cite Leela evals and argue positions are very reasonable and balanced. In either case I am not sure what we are achieving.

TCEC chose to use opening evaluations were TCEC said it was favorable only to the "traditional chess engines". Fascinating!

From TCEC-----"opening evaluations in traditional chess engines (i.e. not neural nets)".

[Daniel Shawul]

It has been clear for sometime now that the unbalanced book is very unfair to Lc0.
TCEC does it for the sake of entertainment, but drawing any conclusions from it doesn't make any sense.
This SuFi and last one have been all about who can convert better given a position with a +1 advantage.
If every season is going to be like this, I guess there is no point watching TCEC SuFi.

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

I just took a look at the first 10 openings (20 games) and I don't think they are particularly unbalanced. In fact, I play several of those openings myself. The only ones I find somewhat odd are the French with Ng8 and KGA with Nc3.

Most of the lines are theoretically very well established and see a decent amount of play.I'm not sure where this notion comes from that TCEC has unbalanced openings this season in particular.

I also don't know what such fans want to see, would they prefer even less decisive games?

I am surprized you need clarification for this but here it goes.
These are scores of stockfish right out of book for the second half of the match starting from game 52

52 - +1.31
54 - +1.06
56 - +1.19
58 - +0.80
60 - +1.14
62 - +1.17
64 - +1.17
66 - +1.12
68 - +1.20
70 - +0.80
72 - -0.93
74 - +0.70
76 - +0.66
78 - +1.38
80 - +1.05
82 - +0.83

SF may well be superior to Lc0 but this unbalanced openings prove nothing.
Even SF without NNUE was able to get +7 over leela last season entirely due to the book.

You are citing SF scores from the white side with contempt. We could also cite Leela evals and argue positions are very reasonable and balanced. In either case I am not sure what we are achieving.

Indeed not sure the point of arguing with you when you deny obvious facts admitted by TCEC themselves.
Note, no one except you is arguing that the book is not unbalanced, but whether it is fair or not...
Clearly, SF liked the second half of Sufi in which it averaged a >+1.0 score on book exit as shown above, and
this is exactly where it got its 5 mini-match wins.

Leela is known to have scores that are way less than other engines. If lc0 says a +1.5 it is probably a +3 for SF and others.
Also, Jeroen uses SF for preparing the book itself, which is unfair. If he adds lc0 and made sure that lc0 also gets a +1 on his unbalanced
opening, I am pretty sure the tide will turn in lc0's favor given lc0 low scores.

[Daniel Shawul]

It has been clear for sometime now that the unbalanced book is very unfair to Lc0.
TCEC does it for the sake of entertainment, but drawing any conclusions from it doesn't make any sense.
This SuFi and last one have been all about who can convert better given a position with a +1 advantage.
If every season is going to be like this, I guess there is no point watching TCEC SuFi.

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

I just took a look at the first 10 openings (20 games) and I don't think they are particularly unbalanced. In fact, I play several of those openings myself. The only ones I find somewhat odd are the French with Ng8 and KGA with Nc3.

Most of the lines are theoretically very well established and see a decent amount of play.I'm not sure where this notion comes from that TCEC has unbalanced openings this season in particular.

I also don't know what such fans want to see, would they prefer even less decisive games?

I am surprized you need clarification for this but here it goes.
These are scores of stockfish right out of book for the second half of the match starting from game 52

Code: Select all

52 - +1.31
54 - +1.06 => 10. 1.06 17. 0.69
56 - +1.19
58 - +0.80 => 1/2-1/2
60 - +1.14 => 7. 1.14 139. 0.62
62 - +1.17 => 1/2-1/2
64 - +1.17 => 1/2-1/2
66 - +1.12 => 1/2-1/2
68 - +1.20
70 - +0.80 => 1/2-1/2
72 - -0.93 => 1/2-1/2
74 - +0.70 ?? here I disagree ;-) and would give >1.00
76 - +0.66 ?? 25. 0.24
78 - +1.38
80 - +1.05
82 - +0.83 => 1/2-1/2

SF may well be superior to Lc0 but this unbalanced openings prove nothing.
Even SF without NNUE was able to get +7 over leela last season entirely due to the book.

The score right after book end is no verdict. Usually you need to look also at the eval several plies later to get a real clue
about an opening.
Even at this tc and with the hardware of TCEC the first move out of book/start position might be evaluated relatively wrong.

I added the result in case it still was a draw. For the others I added much lower later evals if existed
(move number out of book + score, move number with later lower score,
but first move number not given for score <= 0.70 don't consider this as unbalanced)

Here are just two counter examples which prove this, game 60 and 76 from your list above.
Also look at all the drawn ones listed above, despite the 'virtual' advantage dreamed by SF.


[pgn][Event "TCEC Season 19 - Superfinal"]
[Site "https://tcec-chess.com"]
[Date "2020.10.09"]
[Round "60.1"]
[White "Stockfish 202009282242_nn-baeb9ef2d183"]
[Black "LCZero v0.26.3-rc1_T60.SV.JH.92-190"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "3542"]
[ECO "B05"]
[GameDuration "04:52:51"]
[GameEndTime "2020-10-09T23:58:28.960 UTC"]
[GameStartTime "2020-10-09T19:05:37.275 UTC"]
[Opening "Alekhine's defence"]
[PlyCount "328"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TerminationDetails "TCEC win rule"]
[TimeControl "7200+10"]
[Variation "modern variation, 4...Bg4"]
[WhiteElo "3564"]

1. e4 {book} Nf6 {book}
2. e5 {book} Nd5 {book}
3. d4 {book} d6 {book}
4. Nf3 {book} Bg4 {book}
5. Be2 {book} e6 {book}
6. O-O {book} Be7 {book}
7. h3 {1.14/50 6912.914} Bh5 {0.47/21 7129.865}
8. c4 {1.12/48 6831.246} Nb6 {0.50/23 7070.334}
9. Be3 {1.11/51 6571.563} O-O {0.51/21 6968.449}
10. Nc3 {1.08/52 6525.175} d5 {0.51/21 6863.511}
11. c5 {1.16/51 6414.854} Bxf3 {0.52/20 6799.201}
12. gxf3 {1.09/50 6325.128} Nc8 {0.52/22 6478.135}
13. Bd3 {0.98/57 6173.532} Nc6 {0.53/24 6477.598}
14. f4 {0.98/61 6044.069} f5 {0.53/22 6477.098}
15. Kh2 {1.21/50 5924.805} Qe8 {0.51/15 6032.395}
16. Be2 {1.08/55 5413.380} a6 {0.52/16 5604.391}
17. Rg1 {1.06/50 5295.622} Kh8 {0.51/20 5477.249}
18. a3 {0.98/51 5197.575} N8a7 {0.52/16 5427.771}
19. b4 {0.98/61 5115.577} Qf7 {0.53/15 5334.310}
20. Rb1 {1.24/45 4938.306} Rfb8 {0.50/16 5201.659}
21. Rg2 {1.13/59 4766.056} Bf8 {0.46/13 4993.164}
22. h4 {1.31/48 4590.395} b5 {0.48/12 4707.277}
23. Rg3 {1.41/59 4532.889} Qd7 {0.49/10 4523.187}
24. Qe1 {1.41/69 4451.254} Nd8 {0.44/10 4361.201}
25. h5 {1.41/70 4208.709} Nf7 {0.47/11 4287.842}
26. Qd1 {1.41/69 4171.505} Nh6 {0.47/11 4014.424}
27. Qd3 {1.41/72 4115.041} c6 {0.42/10 3935.748}
28. Na2 {1.65/71 4057.679} Be7 {0.35/9 3764.884}
29. Rbg1 {1.65/69 3992.197} Bh4 {0.26/12 3662.807}
30. R3g2 {1.65/76 3930.449} Bd8 {0.28/14 3435.469}
31. Bd2 {1.65/77 3865.104} Rb7 {0.31/12 3296.437}
32. Nc1 {1.65/75 3787.159} Nc8 {0.38/11 3078.341}
33. Nb3 {1.65/74 3720.125} Kg8 {0.41/10 2907.276}
34. Qh3 {1.65/70 3663.692} Kh8 {0.50/9 2759.465}
35. Kh1 {1.65/72 3597.348} Qe7 {0.52/10 2595.561}
36. Rg5 {1.65/67 3541.345} Qe8 {0.48/10 2489.697}
37. R5g2 {1.65/78 3465.072} Qd7 {0.51/9 2303.238}
38. Rf1 {1.65/68 3408.321} Rbb8 {0.50/9 2152.915}
39. Bd1 {1.65/69 3338.770} Rb7 {0.40/10 2004.669}
40. Rfg1 {1.65/72 3248.703} Qf7 {0.41/10 1861.038}
41. Rf1 {1.65/69 3177.519} Qd7 {0.40/9 1722.986}
42. Bf3 {1.65/67 3123.735} Na7 {0.38/9 1598.365}
43. Rfg1 {1.65/64 3070.646} Nc8 {0.39/9 1460.851}
44. Be2 {1.65/70 3018.597} Qe7 {0.49/10 1333.687}
45. Qd3 {1.65/68 2464.849} Qh4+ {0.35/10 1241.657}
46. Rh2 {1.74/61 2411.576} Qe7 {0.37/11 1207.917}
47. Rh3 {1.74/66 2361.829} Rbb8 {0.38/10 1023.786}
48. Qg3 {1.74/63 2318.294} Qd7 {0.40/10 900.980}
49. Bd1 {1.74/61 2257.535} Rb7 {0.33/10 807.294}
50. Qg2 {1.74/57 2197.521} Na7 {0.34/10 726.216}
51. Re1 {1.74/56 2155.127} Rbb8 {0.30/10 643.225}
52. Rg3 {1.74/56 1915.522} Qf7 {0.30/11 571.613}
53. Rg1 {1.74/50 1868.643} Rb7 {0.30/12 547.532}
54. Be2 {1.74/48 1826.667} Qe7 {0.36/11 445.391}
55. Bd1 {1.74/46 1792.300} Rc7 {0.27/10 393.100}
56. Qf1 {1.74/43 1744.695} Rb7 {0.21/10 345.902}
57. R1g2 {1.73/42 1697.862} Nc8 {0.17/10 307.010}
58. Bc3 {1.73/41 1658.266} Qh4+ {0.14/12 268.136}
59. Rh2 {1.73/39 1594.668} Qe7 {0.12/9 260.725}
60. Bd2 {1.74/40 1387.886} Rbb8 {0.09/9 218.737}
61. Kg2 {1.71/40 1305.382} Qd7 {0.07/9 183.619}
62. Rh1 {1.65/35 1289.137} Qf7 {0.13/10 158.235}
63. Kf3 {1.74/35 1231.488} Qe8 {0.00/9 138.489}
64. Qh3 {1.65/40 975.337} Qf7 {0.08/9 124.037}
65. Kg2 {1.45/48 921.742} Na7 {0.21/10 111.961}
66. Be2 {1.45/45 800.333} Qd7 {0.29/10 95.873}
67. Rg1 {1.57/40 731.112} Be7 {0.27/9 86.946}
68. Bc1 {1.49/48 695.241} Rb7 {0.34/9 76.125}
69. Nd2 {1.49/49 687.887} Bd8 {0.36/10 74.012}
70. Nb3 {1.33/53 613.504} Qe8 {0.27/9 60.535}
71. Bd2 {1.33/62 600.709} Rc7 {0.29/9 53.392}
72. Ra1 {1.33/66 585.860} Qd7 {0.30/9 53.511}
73. a4 {1.33/63 568.062} bxa4 {0.28/9 54.234}
74. Rxa4 {1.33/71 550.625} Nb5 {0.29/8 57.530}
75. Ra1 {1.33/68 537.445} Rca7 {0.30/7 39.918}
76. Kf1 {1.33/60 524.710} Qc7 {0.28/7 33.306}
77. Rg1 {1.33/64 509.080} Ng8 {0.38/8 30.906}
78. Bd3 {1.33/60 495.425} Qb7 {0.49/8 28.058}
79. Rg2 {1.33/74 483.162} Rb8 {0.42/8 29.017}
80. Bc2 {1.33/65 471.921} Nc7 {0.46/8 25.697}
81. Na5 {1.33/69 450.179} Qa8 {0.49/11 28.301}
82. Qd3 {1.33/70 434.787} Nh6 {0.37/10 22.404}
83. Rg1 {1.33/66 418.559} Nb5 {0.32/8 22.817}
84. Nb3 {1.33/73 403.094} Qb7 {0.37/9 22.300}
85. Be1 {1.33/63 389.845} Be7 {0.41/9 18.588}
86. Qg3 {1.33/65 379.751} Bf8 {0.46/9 21.472}
87. Qh3 {1.33/67 370.304} Qd7 {0.48/8 17.254}
88. Rg2 {1.33/62 360.788} Nc7 {0.47/7 17.851}
89. Rg3 {1.33/63 347.006} Be7 {0.42/7 16.002}
90. Ke2 {1.33/65 330.190} Qd8 {0.45/7 16.613}
91. Rg1 {1.33/70 321.523} Bf8 {0.49/8 14.900}
92. Bd2 {1.33/66 311.250} Qe8 {0.44/8 14.373}
93. Bd3 {1.33/62 302.720} Ng8 {0.46/7 13.936}
94. Rg3 {1.33/61 293.494} Be7 {0.44/7 13.828}
95. Bc2 {1.33/58 284.860} Nh6 {0.40/7 14.218}
96. Rgg1 {1.33/59 269.227} Bf8 {0.43/7 13.743}
97. Bd3 {1.33/56 259.812} Ng8 {0.46/8 12.960}
98. Rg2 {1.33/53 246.895} Be7 {0.47/7 12.861}
99. Kf1 {1.25/53 138.774} Nh6 {0.43/8 13.447}
100. Ke2 {1.25/59 136.730} Bf8 {0.47/8 12.567}
101. f3 {1.25/63 134.787} Ng8 {0.50/7 13.200}
102. Rgg1 {1.25/58 133.533} Be7 {0.49/7 12.190}
103. Na5 {1.25/58 133.207} Nb5 {0.47/8 13.571}
104. Ke3 {1.25/57 132.365} Bd8 {0.48/8 15.290}
105. Nb3 {1.25/59 132.136} Be7 {0.48/8 18.755}
106. Qg2 {1.25/84 128.107} Bf8 {0.48/8 21.150}
107. Qg5 {1.25/62 127.652} Nc7 {0.44/8 19.473}
108. Ke2 {1.25/63 123.745} Rba8 {0.41/8 12.250}
109. Rh1 {1.25/65 123.272} Be7 {0.37/7 12.192}
110. Qg2 {1.25/58 120.746} Rb8 {0.40/8 12.171}
111. Na5 {1.25/57 120.909} Bf8 {0.38/8 12.860}
112. Qh2 {1.25/51 121.599} Nb5 {0.40/8 12.269}
113. Nb3 {1.25/56 112.217} Nc7 {0.40/7 12.964}
114. Rhg1 {1.25/57 112.814} Be7 {0.42/7 11.992}
115. Rg2 {1.25/63 114.011} Bf8 {0.42/7 12.399}
116. Qh3 {1.25/58 112.407} Be7 {0.41/7 11.920}
117. Qg3 {1.25/59 110.127} Bf8 {0.39/8 15.646}
118. Qh2 {1.25/60 110.470} Qd8 {0.40/7 11.327}
119. Rgg1 {1.25/55 107.369} Be7 {0.40/7 11.475}
120. Na5 {1.25/59 108.014} Qe8 {0.45/11 12.651}
121. Ke3 {1.25/49 97.919} Nb5 {0.40/8 12.719}
122. Nb3 {1.16/52 76.717} Nc7 {0.39/7 15.619}
123. Rg2 {1.16/51 47.827} Bd8 {0.39/8 11.706}
124. Ke2 {1.16/45 52.466} Nh6 {0.35/8 12.846}
125. Rg3 {1.09/47 43.192} Be7 {0.31/7 13.812}
126. Rg2 {1.08/48 49.738} Qc8 {0.33/8 11.004}
127. Rag1 {1.08/48 46.448} Bf8 {0.33/9 13.786}
128. Qh4 {1.08/46 52.317} Ne8 {0.25/8 12.559}
129. Ra1 {1.08/45 56.484} Nc7 {0.28/8 11.648}
130. Qg5 {1.00/43 44.190} Nf7 {0.25/8 11.218}
131. Qh4 {1.00/41 51.481} Nh6 {0.25/8 15.615}
132. Rh1 {1.00/38 56.220} Ne8 {0.16/8 14.100}
133. Rb1 {0.92/36 58.767} Qd7 {0.19/8 11.058}
134. Ra1 {0.92/38 42.238} Nc7 {0.22/8 13.888}
135. Kf1 {0.92/34 46.684} Be7 {0.14/8 16.048}
136. Qh2 {0.84/31 46.296} Qd8 {0.16/8 11.034}
137. Ke2 {0.73/37 20.268} Qd7 {0.24/9 11.138}
138. Rag1 {0.65/30 22.516} Bf8 {0.19/9 13.931}
139. Ke3 {0.62/31 29.869} Nb5 {0.28/9 11.074}
140. Be1 {0.77/36 33.609} Qf7 {0.33/12 14.707}
141. Ra2 {0.92/39 39.152} Nc7 {0.33/15 18.334}
142. Na5 {1.00/37 45.972} Qd7 {0.47/12 14.972}
143. Bh4 {1.14/37 44.905} Rxb4 {0.50/16 18.578}
144. Bg5 {1.36/36 51.353} Ng8 {0.44/17 22.985}
145. h6 {2.14/34 56.013} g6 {0.43/16 28.208}
146. Qh4 {2.19/36 61.497} Ne7 {0.64/20 32.655}
147. Bf6+ {4.57/33 66.362} Kg8 {0.90/18 29.322}
148. Rag2 {4.76/35 68.135} Kf7 {2.51/22 28.643}
149. Bxe7 {7.32/36 72.552} Bxe7 {3.18/22 33.338}
150. Qh5 {8.04/38 76.404} gxh5 {3.52/22 38.267}
151. Rg7+ {9.19/34 78.153} Ke8 {3.80/21 43.025}
152. Rxh7 {9.87/33 80.368} Kd8 {4.11/20 41.932}
153. Rgg7 {10.29/34 83.837} Na8 {4.61/20 22.532}
154. Rh8+ {13.56/37 60.083} Kc7 {4.98/19 25.147}
155. Rhg8 {13.62/32 65.894} Ra4 {5.69/20 28.653}
156. h7 {16.32/35 68.735} Rxa5 {6.33/19 32.062}
157. h8=Q {18.06/36 72.171} Nb6 {6.79/19 35.528}
158. Re8 {19.45/33 75.524} Nc8 {8.09/17 32.653}
159. Rxc8+ {20.56/33 79.744} Qxc8 {9.48/16 35.857}
160. Rxe7+ {22.33/32 82.122} Kb8 {10.40/15 39.403}
161. Qxc8+ {25.35/31 82.840} Kxc8 {11.66/1 49.399}
162. Rxa7 {29.01/31 86.456} Kd8 {11.82/11 36.760}
163. Rxa6 {92 89620/M41} Rxa6 {11.64/11 34.485}
164. Bxa6 {100 92780/M39} h4 {11.94/10 22.593}
1-0[/pgn]


[pgn][Event "TCEC Season 19 - Superfinal"]
[Site "https://tcec-chess.com"]
[Date "2020.10.12"]
[Round "76.1"]
[White "Stockfish 202009282242_nn-baeb9ef2d183"]
[Black "LCZero v0.26.3-rc1_T60.SV.JH.92-190"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "3542"]
[ECO "B12"]
[GameDuration "04:44:44"]
[GameEndTime "2020-10-12T14:41:48.614 UTC"]
[GameStartTime "2020-10-12T09:57:04.274 UTC"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann"]
[PlyCount "282"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TerminationDetails "TCEC win rule"]
[TimeControl "7200+10"]
[Variation "advance variation"]
[WhiteElo "3564"]

1. e4 {book} c6 {book}
2. d4 {book} d5 {book}
3. e5 {book} Bf5 {book}
4. Nf3 {book} e6 {book}
5. c3 {book} Nd7 {book}
6. Be2 {book} Ne7 {book}
7. O-O {book} h6 {book}
8. Nbd2 {book} Qc7 {book}
9. Re1 {book} O-O-O {book}
10. Nf1 {0.66/50 6678.812} g5 {0.34/18 7128.653}
11. Ng3 {0.70/47 6490.840} Bh7 {0.33/21 7039.079}
12. b4 {0.63/61 5979.663} Nf5 {0.30/22 6900.843}
13. Nxf5 {0.53/53 5905.402} Bxf5 {0.30/23 6771.432}
14. a4 {0.47/51 5487.847} Kb8 {0.29/24 6686.751}
15. Bd3 {0.44/59 5396.241} Bxd3 {0.28/22 6594.697}
16. Qxd3 {0.44/57 5298.250} Be7 {0.27/22 6528.773}
17. Be3 {0.44/56 5079.645} Rdg8 {0.26/20 6375.735}
18. Rab1 {0.44/60 5024.825} Nb6 {0.26/20 6121.076}
19. Ra1 {0.52/56 4934.078} Nc4 {0.24/19 5982.080}
20. Nd2 {0.27/63 4812.268} Nxe3 {0.24/19 5890.886}
21. Rxe3 {0.27/60 4722.520} h5 {0.24/21 5894.148}
22. Rf1 {0.27/65 4639.395} Rf8 {0.16/18 5444.806}
23. Qe2 {0.27/54 4535.911} Ka8 {0.16/17 5276.117}
24. Nb3 {0.27/66 4474.154} g4 {0.16/16 5269.912}
25. f4 {0.27/66 4412.475} Qc8 {0.17/14 5076.753}
26. a5 {0.40/59 4204.387} a6 {0.13/14 4747.410}
27. Nc1 {0.32/65 4126.312} Rh6 {0.14/14 4193.891}
28. Kf2 {0.57/63 4057.047} Bh4+ {0.14/13 4091.146}
29. g3 {0.73/59 3996.016} Be7 {0.04/11 3940.960}
30. Rg1 {0.73/64 3900.312} Ka7 {0.02/10 3629.541}
31. Nd3 {0.73/69 3817.360} Rfh8 {0.03/9 3466.390}
32. Kf1 {0.73/69 3760.738} R6h7 {0.03/9 3277.545}
33. Nf2 {0.73/69 3700.495} Qg8 {0.06/8 3109.640}
34. Ke1 {0.73/72 3634.875} Rh6 {0.09/8 2947.083}
35. Kd1 {0.73/71 3570.200} Qc8 {0.12/8 2784.887}
36. Kc2 {0.73/67 3504.272} Qd7 {0.17/9 2622.930}
37. Kd2 {0.73/67 3447.680} Qc8 {0.10/8 2457.909}
38. Nd3 {0.73/68 3390.991} Qg8 {0.07/8 2348.387}
39. Nf2 {0.73/76 3299.340} Qc8 {0.11/9 2148.474}
40. Ra1 {0.73/74 3233.065} Qg8 {0.09/8 1991.222}
41. Qd3 {0.73/72 3157.716} h4 {0.17/10 1846.016}
42. Rg1 {0.73/68 3105.592} hxg3 {0.18/11 1772.327}
43. hxg3 {0.81/67 3050.257} Rh2 {0.18/10 1657.370}
44. Re2 {0.81/76 2990.037} Qg7 {0.19/10 1495.982}
45. Kc2 {0.81/77 2935.253} R8h6 {0.20/10 1310.758}
46. Rd2 {0.81/70 2864.762} Rh8 {0.19/9 1221.026}
47. Re2 {0.81/65 2808.643} R8h6 {0.19/9 1075.195}
48. Rd2 {0.81/71 2756.787} Rh8 {0.18/9 993.308}
49. Kb3 {0.81/73 2705.833} R8h5 {0.22/11 889.889}
50. Rb2 {0.81/66 2648.692} Rh8 {0.28/14 785.615}
51. Qd1 {0.81/74 2565.009} Qg6 {0.26/16 764.623}
52. Qc2 {0.81/77 2381.675} Qh6 {0.22/17 683.997}
53. Qd1 {0.81/68 2327.111} Rg8 {0.22/14 654.418}
54. Rc2 {0.81/67 2282.044} Qh7 {0.27/12 499.567}
55. Qc1 {0.81/66 2215.931} Rg6 {0.19/8 432.061}
56. Qd1 {0.81/65 2166.752} Qg7 {0.20/10 374.542}
57. Rb2 {0.81/66 2122.242} Bd8 {0.19/9 325.299}
58. Ra2 {0.81/71 2061.971} Be7 {0.18/8 303.326}
59. Qf1 {0.81/66 2010.536} Qh7 {0.19/9 259.460}
60. Re2 {0.81/69 1834.132} Bd8 {0.21/11 222.604}
61. Rb2 {0.73/98 1349.521} Be7 {0.19/9 206.042}
62. Qd3 {0.73/66 1314.870} Qh8 {0.21/11 195.065}
63. Rc2 {0.73/63 1265.044} Rg8 {0.26/10 152.896}
64. Re2 {0.73/64 1235.880} Qg7 {0.25/9 130.676}
65. Ra2 {0.73/63 1188.597} Qh8 {0.18/8 115.423}
66. Qe2 {0.73/61 1156.030} Rg6 {0.21/8 103.853}
67. Qd3 {0.73/53 1128.181} Rg8 {0.18/8 93.298}
68. Re2 {0.73/54 1080.697} Qg7 {0.24/9 81.341}
69. Qe3 {0.63/59 762.785} Rgh8 {0.12/7 77.299}
70. Ra2 {0.60/54 714.690} Rg8 {0.13/8 69.056}
71. Rc2 {0.59/50 682.048} Rh6 {0.14/8 57.228}
72. Rg2 {0.81/65 661.323} Rh5 {0.15/7 51.041}
73. Rc1 {0.81/54 644.586} Qh6 {0.26/10 46.929}
74. Rgg1 {0.81/54 606.711} Rh2 {0.36/10 45.956}
75. Rh1 {1.37/44 598.811} Qh7 {0.39/10 38.383}
76. Qe2 {1.30/52 534.789} Rg6 {0.38/10 37.449}
77. Qd3 {1.39/66 520.864} Qh8 {0.42/12 36.204}
78. Rcg1 {1.21/59 503.026} Rg8 {0.43/13 34.616}
79. Qf1 {1.48/62 485.637} b6 {0.41/18 37.102}
80. Rxh2 {0.98/66 441.297} Qxh2 {0.44/20 41.070}
81. axb6+ {0.98/64 427.188} Kxb6 {0.55/20 43.430}
82. Qg2 {0.98/67 414.950} Qh5 {0.61/16 26.884}
83. Rh1 {0.98/54 398.913} Qg6 {0.74/25 29.084}
84. Qh2 {1.98/53 384.865} a5 {0.77/26 31.901}
85. Qh7 {2.04/52 375.963} axb4 {0.77/26 35.537}
86. cxb4 {2.29/63 292.209} Qxh7 {0.76/28 38.048}
87. Rxh7 {2.49/49 283.661} Rf8 {0.75/26 41.566}
88. Rg7 {2.42/53 276.270} Kb5 {0.77/26 43.670}
89. Nd3 {2.71/52 269.372} Bd8 {0.78/24 47.701}
90. Nc1 {2.87/46 261.283} Be7 {0.79/22 48.957}
91. Na2 {2.78/54 248.140} Kb6 {0.80/22 53.479}
92. Rxg4 {3.01/57 218.600} Kc7 {0.84/23 57.237}
93. Rg7 {3.07/54 180.290} Kd7 {0.85/22 28.824}
94. Nc1 {3.10/55 126.172} Ke8 {0.90/27 31.637}
95. Rh7 {3.37/49 128.214} Rg8 {0.92/21 36.414}
96. Ne2 {3.36/49 123.411} Bf8 {0.96/25 15.780}
97. Ka3 {3.72/46 61.196} Be7 {1.20/28 16.726}
98. Ka4 {4.04/37 63.018} Kd7 {1.30/29 18.701}
99. Rxf7 {4.07/40 66.715} Rb8 {1.32/30 22.557}
100. Ka3 {4.01/38 67.963} Rb7 {1.34/31 26.450}
101. Rh7 {4.12/40 72.064} Ke8 {1.27/35 28.851}
102. Rh8+ {4.29/41 60.855} Kd7 {1.29/31 32.096}
103. Kb3 {4.32/40 38.817} Rxb4+ {1.31/31 34.707}
104. Kc2 {4.36/37 46.452} Rc4+ {1.33/32 37.191}
105. Kd3 {4.47/36 52.518} Ra4 {1.29/21 43.164}
106. Rb8 {4.58/37 51.750} Ra3+ {1.38/29 46.057}
107. Kd2 {4.53/33 56.227} Kc7 {1.12/27 44.593}
108. Rb1 {4.91/38 56.592} c5 {1.14/25 49.145}
109. g4 {5.09/40 62.180} c4 {1.12/25 52.891}
110. g5 {5.31/39 65.208} Rd3+ {1.09/26 50.835}
111. Kc2 {5.64/44 60.506} Re3 {1.10/24 46.126}
112. Kd2 {6.19/43 47.168} Rd3+ {1.14/25 39.476}
113. Ke1 {6.40/42 35.364} Rf3 {1.18/24 41.720}
114. g6 {6.60/39 32.252} Bf8 {1.49/23 35.794}
115. Rb5 {6.55/36 24.628} Bh6 {1.03/21 29.472}
116. Rb2 {6.67/39 27.389} Bf8 {1.48/26 31.109}
117. Rb1 {6.90/35 32.097} Kc8 {1.73/28 34.731}
118. Kd2 {6.57/36 30.851} Rd3+ {1.95/26 39.025}
119. Kc2 {7.13/38 28.401} Re3 {2.10/26 42.748}
120. Nc3 {7.17/35 30.431} Rg3 {2.25/27 46.800}
121. f5 {7.30/27 37.864} Rg2+ {2.37/25 50.341}
122. Kd1 {7.68/30 43.057} exf5 {2.40/25 54.467}
123. Nxd5 {7.89/27 49.405} Rg4 {2.52/23 57.969}
124. Kc2 {9.50/29 54.298} Rxd4 {3.87/18 43.802}
125. Nf6 {11.96/30 54.202} Rh4 {4.86/17 44.663}
126. Ra1 {13.28/31 56.960} Kb7 {3.60/18 32.516}
127. Rg1 {16.65/28 54.278} Bg7 {3.95/18 31.469}
128. Rd1 {20.99/27 56.993} Kc6 {4.55/18 23.410}
129. Rd7 {32.68/28 60.117} Bh8 {5.50/19 24.824}
130. g7 {152.50/54 64.337} Bxg7 {6.44/18 19.316}
131. Rxg7 {152.52/68 57.695} Rh2+ {6.70/17 21.317}
132. Kc3 {152.55/54 61.797} Re2 {6.80/18 24.052}
133. Re7 {152.57/55 66.089} Kb5 {6.79/14 19.191}
134. Kd4 {152.58/62 70.210} Rd2+ {7.62/16 22.331}
135. Ke3 {152.59/63 25.051} Rd3+ {7.52/16 26.031}
136. Kf4 {152.60/55 16.020} c3 {8.64/13 31.212}
137. Rb7+ {152.62/60 24.723} Kc6 {10.25/12 34.465}
138. Rb8 {152.65/42 24.325} Kc7 {13.49/9 32.932}
139. Rb4 {152.65/39 25.419} Kd8 {17.72/4 18.345}
140. Rc4 {152.65/36 33.094} Rh3 {25.64/2 21.941}
141. Kxf5 {33 34859/M49} Rf3+ {987.16/2 22.927}
1-0[/pgn]

All games ran through a macro to get clean readable pgn, last number is TL (time left).
Graphs copied out of Tom McBurneys wonderful game analyzer.

I agree that the first score out of book may not always be indicative of how things progress.
But comparing the first half and second half, it does seem to have a great influence.
Here is the first haf for comparison

2 - +0.21 =
4 - +0.12 =
6 - +1.14 + -
8 - -0.70 =
10 - -0.66 =
12 - +0.99 + -
14 - +0.84 =
16 - +0.89 =
18 - +0.77 + = won
20 - +0.20 =
22 - +0.22 =
24 - +0.67 - = loss
26 - +0.49 =
28 - +0.62 =
30 - +0.68 =
32 - +0.49 =
34 - +0.90 + -
36 - +0.67 =
38 - +0.38 =
40 - -0.47 =
42 - +0.88 =
44 - +0.56 =
46 - +0.64 =
48 - +0.98 + = won
50 - +0.62 =

Second half, 5 mini-match wins

52 - +1.31 + -
54 - +1.06 + = won
56 - +1.19 + -
58 - +0.80 =
60 - +1.14 + = won
62 - +1.17 =
64 - +1.17 =
66 - +1.12 =
68 - +1.20 + -
70 - +0.80 =
72 - -0.93 =
74 - +0.70 + = won
76 - +0.66 + = won
78 - +1.38 + -
80 - +1.05 + = won
82 - +0.83 =

won=SF wins minimatch