Alright, I'm done with this thread. I was about to do another lengthy message, but it keeps falling on deaf ears. Without basic reading comprehension, arguing is pointless.
The OP made a specific claim (engine, position, conditions, result). I do think it is too optimistic, but the claim is precise and well-defined. Despite it being reminded repeatedly, the "refutations" have been focused on saying there are positions where Stockfish doesn't find the key move, on misapplying elo (claiming the OP effectively said perfect chess is at 3900 CCRL blitz elo proves a deep misunderstanding of both the claim and of how elo works), while summarily dismissing any inconvenient point.
NOT LOSING A GAME FROM THE START POSITION (in OP's claim, as white only) DOES NOT REQUIRE PLAYING EVERY SINGLE LEGAL CHESS POSITION PERFECTLY.
Alayan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:35 pm
Meanwhile, SF from 1.5 years ago + 6-men got 99.999% of 7-men positions right with a few Gnodes.
This has not been tested. We don't know how many positions SF gets right. Obviously we can't test every one, but it's not obvious how to choose positions to test.
Have all the existing positions been tested ? No. But you don't need to test every position.
Statistical laws tell you that random sampling of a large number of positions will give you a good approximation of the true value over all possible positions.
Aloril did test 10 million positions, which is enough to get the order of magnitude right. I gave the detailed data earlier in this thread.
Alayan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:04 am
Alright, I'm done with this thread. I was about to do another lengthy message, but it keeps falling on deaf ears. Without basic reading comprehension, arguing is pointless.
The OP made a specific claim (engine, position, conditions, result). I do think it is too optimistic, but the claim is precise and well-defined. Despite it being reminded repeatedly, the "refutations" have been focused on saying there are positions where Stockfish doesn't find the key move, on misapplying elo (claiming the OP effectively said perfect chess is at 3900 CCRL blitz elo proves a deep misunderstanding of both the claim and of how elo works), while summarily dismissing any inconvenient point.
NOT LOSING A GAME FROM THE START POSITION (in OP's claim, as white only) DOES NOT REQUIRE PLAYING EVERY SINGLE LEGAL CHESS POSITION PERFECTLY.
Alayan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:35 pm
Meanwhile, SF from 1.5 years ago + 6-men got 99.999% of 7-men positions right with a few Gnodes.
This has not been tested. We don't know how many positions SF gets right. Obviously we can't test every one, but it's not obvious how to choose positions to test.
Have all the existing positions been tested ? No. But you don't need to test every position.
Statistical laws tell you that random sampling of a large number of positions will give you a good approximation of the true value over all possible positions.
Aloril did test 10 million positions, which is enough to get the order of magnitude right. I gave the detailed data earlier in this thread.
Here's Stockfish demonstrating his "almost" perfect chess.
Alayan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:35 pm
Meanwhile, SF from 1.5 years ago + 6-men got 99.999% of 7-men positions right with a few Gnodes.
This has not been tested. We don't know how many positions SF gets right. Obviously we can't test every one, but it's not obvious how to choose positions to test.
How is it relevant even if true?
For the test to mean anything, Stockfish should not be allowed to use the 6 man tablebases nor an opening book.
If Stockfish is indeed playing "perfect chess" it will need neither.
Exactly. Stockfish does not need God mode in any form. Meaning Stockfish needs to come up with the moves.
And this would not mean anything anyway. Stockfish would be taken into a loss endgame by force. As the mistake will most likely happen early in the game. With the losing endgame being the consequence of the early mistake. TB32 mates in 96 moves!
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
JohnWoe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:01 pm
Not wasting time with strawman arguments.
I just provide 1 axiom:
Not losing a game from starting position <> Playing all positions perfectly
Sure there are bugs/fuckups with pruning involved. TB32 without smart heuristics won't sweep SF 100-0.
My tiny 1200 lines engine Mayhem vs 27,485 lines long Crafty. How could Crafty lose a game with 1 healthy pawn up? Probably bugs. I don't know.
[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.11.10"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Crafty-25.6"]
[Black "Mayhem NNUE 0.50"]
[Result "0-1"]
[TimeControl "60/40"]
[ECO "A00"]
[Opening "Dunst (Sleipner, Heinrichsen) Opening"]
[PlyCount "291"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[Annotator "1. +0,19 1... +0,17"]
The argument is not a 100 -0 sweep. Stop moving the goal post. The argument is Stockfish plays near perfect chess right now under TCEC LTC. And is within 200 Elo.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
JohnWoe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:01 pm
Not wasting time with strawman arguments.
I just provide 1 axiom:
Not losing a game from starting position <> Playing all positions perfectly
Sure there are bugs/fuckups with pruning involved. TB32 without smart heuristics won't sweep SF 100-0.
My tiny 1200 lines engine Mayhem vs 27,485 lines long Crafty. How could Crafty lose a game with 1 healthy pawn up? Probably bugs. I don't know.
[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.11.10"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Crafty-25.6"]
[Black "Mayhem NNUE 0.50"]
[Result "0-1"]
[TimeControl "60/40"]
[ECO "A00"]
[Opening "Dunst (Sleipner, Heinrichsen) Opening"]
[PlyCount "291"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[Annotator "1. +0,19 1... +0,17"]
The argument is not a 100 -0 sweep. Stop moving the goal post. The argument is Stockfish plays near perfect chess right now under TCEC LTC. And is within 200 Elo.
Somebody wrote about 100-0 sweep.
I provided the most basic axiom which should be agreed. For further progress.
I guess it's human nature this kind of "X of gaps" selective (with null reading pruning) thinking process. Strawman arguments.
A lot of TB positions have been shown in the previous posts where TB can find the win but not the Stockfish. In those positions, the better side already had certain advantage to win.
Practically, you cant create a 32 men TB that also stores chess knowledge about choosing a move that maximise winning chances as they only know win, draw, loss outcomes. There is no priority of choosing better move that restrict opponent play or maximise opponent blunder chance.
As TB are constructed from the same formula, behaviour of 32 men TB will be exactly the same as 7 men TB. When Stockfish play 1. e4 , TB may play Nf6. 2. d4 Ng8 ( because it knows that it could also be draw).
How can TB get a winning position/ chances by randomly choosing any draw moves. How can TB restrict opponent to maximise it's winning chance? Thus being said, TB will almost always play in inferior side of the drawing position and winning positions from multiple previous posts are almost never going to happen to TB ( unrealistic).
Thus being said 32 TB would be the easiest engine ever created in chess. Even 100 elo rated human player may even get a draw against 32 men TB by playing 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Ng8 ( 3 fold repetations).
Nay Lin Tun wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:45 pm
A lot of TB positions have been shown in the previous posts where TB can find the win but not the Stockfish. In those positions, the better side already had certain advantage to win.
Practically, you cant create a 32 men TB that also stores chess knowledge about choosing a move that maximise winning chances as they only know win, draw, loss outcomes. There is no priority of choosing better move that restrict opponent play or maximise opponent blunder chance.
As TB are constructed from the same formula, behaviour of 32 men TB will be exactly the same as 7 men TB. When Stockfish play 1. e4 , TB may play Nf6. 2. d4 Ng8 ( because it knows that it could also be draw).
How can TB get a winning position/ chances by randomly choosing any draw moves. How can TB restrict opponent to maximise it's winning chance? Thus being said, TB will almost always play in inferior side of the drawing position and winning positions from multiple posts are almost never happen to TB ( unrealistic).
Thus being said 32 TB would be the easiest engine ever created in chess. Even 100 elo rated human player may even get a draw against 32 men TB by playing 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Ng8 ( 3 fold repetations).
No as I said before you just do the longest conversions to the next peice set in equal postions This is a proven method the caused havic to humans. Maximizing the chance for non perfect players to blunder. Games would have the potential to last 100s to over 1000 move. With max complexity.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
Alayan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:04 am
Alright, I'm done with this thread. I was about to do another lengthy message, but it keeps falling on deaf ears. Without basic reading comprehension, arguing is pointless.
The OP made a specific claim (engine, position, conditions, result). I do think it is too optimistic, but the claim is precise and well-defined. Despite it being reminded repeatedly, the "refutations" have been focused on saying there are positions where Stockfish doesn't find the key move, on misapplying elo (claiming the OP effectively said perfect chess is at 3900 CCRL blitz elo proves a deep misunderstanding of both the claim and of how elo works), while summarily dismissing any inconvenient point.
NOT LOSING A GAME FROM THE START POSITION (in OP's claim, as white only) DOES NOT REQUIRE PLAYING EVERY SINGLE LEGAL CHESS POSITION PERFECTLY.
Alayan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 9:35 pm
Meanwhile, SF from 1.5 years ago + 6-men got 99.999% of 7-men positions right with a few Gnodes.
This has not been tested. We don't know how many positions SF gets right. Obviously we can't test every one, but it's not obvious how to choose positions to test.
Have all the existing positions been tested ? No. But you don't need to test every position.
Statistical laws tell you that random sampling of a large number of positions will give you a good approximation of the true value over all possible positions.
Aloril did test 10 million positions, which is enough to get the order of magnitude right. I gave the detailed data earlier in this thread.
Here's Stockfish demonstrating his "almost" perfect chess.
But here on move 33. of this game Stockfish missed 33. RxR 33. BxR followed by 34 d4 winning the pawn, is there something wrong with Stockfish contempt?
Alayan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:04 am
Alright, I'm done with this thread. I was about to do another lengthy message, but it keeps falling on deaf ears. Without basic reading comprehension, arguing is pointless.
The OP made a specific claim (engine, position, conditions, result). I do think it is too optimistic, but the claim is precise and well-defined. Despite it being reminded repeatedly, the "refutations" have been focused on saying there are positions where Stockfish doesn't find the key move, on misapplying elo (claiming the OP effectively said perfect chess is at 3900 CCRL blitz elo proves a deep misunderstanding of both the claim and of how elo works), while summarily dismissing any inconvenient point.
NOT LOSING A GAME FROM THE START POSITION (in OP's claim, as white only) DOES NOT REQUIRE PLAYING EVERY SINGLE LEGAL CHESS POSITION PERFECTLY.
It's like having a perfect opening book from starting position vs having a 32 men tablebase. A perfect opening book would not solve no-castling chess or chess960, while a 32 men tablebase would.
