Ethereal 12 (3400) loses to God! (Most Amazing Game I've Seen)

[jp]

3. Kramnik blundered into a mate in 1 against a computer. This is not a rule amongst elite players, so stop pretending it is. You are using an exception to prove a rule with an unsound foundation. Regardless, you have created a strawman here...there is no bug and Ethereal's move (which Vivien proposed to be a blunder) was not a blunder.

Forget whether there is a bug or not. (Actually, there must be many bugs in Ethereal and just about every other engine. It's extremely difficult to create a bug-free program, but that's not important here. And really we'd need to define what we call a bug and what we don't.) Kramnik did not have a bug either. The point is he played an inferior move.

There are countless blunders by elite players. You must know that. Wesley blundered his Queen a few years ago. He just left it attacked for no reason. Was that a "beautiful" queen capture by his opponent?

The only reason I'm highlighting very weak moves by very strong players is that I was responding to your post ranting about people "missing the point" and ranting about elo 3441.

[BrendanJNorman]

3. Kramnik blundered into a mate in 1 against a computer. This is not a rule amongst elite players, so stop pretending it is. You are using an exception to prove a rule with an unsound foundation. Regardless, you have created a strawman here...there is no bug and Ethereal's move (which Vivien proposed to be a blunder) was not a blunder.

Forget whether there is a bug or not. (Actually, there must be many bugs in Ethereal and just about every other engine. It's extremely difficult to create a bug-free program, but that's not important here. And really we'd need to define what we call a bug and what we don't.) Kramnik did not have a bug either. The point is he played an inferior move.

There are countless blunders by elite players. You must know that. Wesley blundered his Queen a few years ago. He just left it attacked for no reason. Was that a "beautiful" queen capture by his opponent?

Dude, you're still trying to force me to fight a strawman. Where did I say that the strength of the opponent is what defines a beautiful game? I didn't, so this argument has no legs. I'll repeat again: What makes a beautiful game is an artful CONCEPT contained therein. The strength of the opponent is only a cherry on top. Kasparov playing his beautiful game against Topalov in 1999 is made even more beautiful because his opponent is the mighty Topalov...but it would have been just as beautiful (while very slightly less impressive) if the opponent were GM Larry Kaufman.

Get the point yet?

[BrendanJNorman]

The only reason I'm highlighting very weak moves by very strong players is that I was responding to your post ranting about people "missing the point" and ranting about elo 3441.

Please quote me accurately (there is a convenient quote function on this board ), because I don't remember where I was "ranting" about people "missing the point" and "ranting" about 3441.

Are you possibly the one "ranting"? You are drowning dude, best to swing in another direction (away from the waves ).

[jp]

Dude, the real point is whether the sac is sound or unsound. Get the point yet?

I don't know why you're so defensive. Save your defensiveness for if it turns out to be a theoretical loss. (At the moment, I'm assuming it's a theoretical draw, which is nothing to be ashamed of.)


And you often rant on this bulletin board. e.g. the spiteful, very long, and completely off-topic argument you had with Ovyron about his playing strength in another thread.

[BrendanJNorman]

Dude, the real point is whether the sac is sound or unsound. Get the point yet?

Obviously it is sound enough. It was enough to defeat an entity stronger than any human who has ever lived.

I bet you are the type who called a Fritz move "sound" 20 years ago because the engine backed it up, even though today that analysis would look foolish.

Regardless, this thread is not about "soundness" per se, it is about appreciating a beautiful game...something you seem unable to do.

What a boring existence for a chessplayer.

I don't know why you're so defensive.

I'm not "defensive", I just like to call out arrogant, unfriendly people.

Some people on this site (like Dan C and Dan H) are very diplomatic and polite, I try to be too...

...but when people are just contrarian for the sake of being douchebags I have to engage.

And you often rant on this bulletin board. e.g. the spiteful, very long, and completely off-topic argument you had with Ovyron about his playing strength in another thread.

See above. Ovyron and I have been online friends for years. He made a claim which I was 100% sure to be untrue (gaining hundreds of Elo in less than a year). I asked for proof, provided proof of my own to be fair (I also claimed to have made some improvement in my chess), and received nothing in return.

If you think this is "spiteful", you aren't thinking correctly.

But this already seems clear now.

[Milos]

No.

What is arrogance, is your typical manner of wading into threads preset with a combative and condescending tone.

What is arrogance, is presuming to know what I am thinking.

What is arrogance, is misrepresenting my words.

I didn't say that I don't "understand" Lc0's sacrifice, the motifs are absolutely clear (advanced passed pawn combined with color complex domination and restriction/overload of enemy pieces via the permanent pin, resulted in a positional domination scenario).

Those who were paying attention would have noticed that I was asking Vivien to explain why the move Qd5 was a blunder (assuming that Qc5 is winning)...because it ISN'T.

Stockfish just takes a long time to see this.

Arrogance is when you clearly don't understand the game, and talk about irrelevant point. Whether because of ignorance or to distract discussion, I don't care.
Engines tell us where the mistakes are made whether you like it or not. The fact you don't understand why is irrelevant. It just demonstrated that chess coaching without engines is irrelevant in today's world.
You seems like a relic of the past angry that you became more less irrelevant.

If you are looking to find some poetry and art in chess sure you can have your subjective feeling and that's perfectly fine. But that doesn't change the facts.
Lc0 played pretty crappy opening and that queen sac was the best move at the given point in time. The game was not decisive at that point by any mean, but Ethereal had a really good advantage which would be, and I have no doubt about that in my mind, converted to a win in a high level correspondence game no matter the effort you put on the defending side.
You seeing +5.0 advantage is actually showing that you don't understand the position at all and just repeat what engines say in bullet conditions.
After that queen sac, Ethereal with bunch of small blunders completely lost that advantage and after 32.Qg3 game was a dead draw. Everything that happened after that point was trading blunders on both sides in 100% drawn game until move 64.Qd8 that is instant game loss, i.e. equivalent to missing mate in 1 in human GM terms. And your claiming that Ethereal lost because of Lc0 queen sac just shows the level of ignorance.

Let me know when lc0 reaches 3800 Elo on a stock graphics card. I'll be waiting.

Lc0 on Titan RTX IMO is very close if not above 3800 Elo in human terms in FIDE TC. Problem is it's almost impossible to verify this. One can only speculate about it.

[Milos]

Lc0 played pretty crappy opening and that queen sac was the best move at the given point in time. The game was not decisive at that point by any mean, but Ethereal had a really good advantage which would be, and I have no doubt about that in my mind, converted to a win in a high level correspondence game no matter the effort you put on the defending side.

And just to add to this, the potential winning line is 21.Kd2 Rfe8 22. Qxd6 Bxd4 23. Qxd4 Nxb3+ 24. Kc2 Nxd4+ 25. Rxd4
that sacs the queen back leaving white with bishop pair against knight and 3 pawns. Shouldn't be too hard for white to win after that point.

[jp]

Lc0 played pretty crappy opening and that queen sac was the best move at the given point in time. The game was not decisive at that point by any mean, but Ethereal had a really good advantage which would be, and I have no doubt about that in my mind, converted to a win in a high level correspondence game no matter the effort you put on the defending side.

And just to add to this, the potential winning line is 21.Kd2 Rfe8 22. Qxd6 Bxd4 23. Qxd4 Nxb3+ 24. Kc2 Nxd4+ 25. Rxd4
that sacs the queen back leaving white with bishop pair against knight and 3 pawns. Shouldn't be too hard for white to win after that point.

So are you saying the line 18... Nfxe4 19. Bf3 Nxc3 20. Qxe7 is Black's best option, but still leaves White with a big advantage?

Those of course are the only questions that matter (i.e. what is the eval, and is it the best move?), so I'm glad at least one person is actually looking at them finally.

[BrendanJNorman]

(Bullshit about the definition of arrogance and Milos' superficial thoughts on my understanding of game..snipped!)

It just demonstrated that chess coaching without engines is irrelevant in today's world.

Whaaaaat?



PATZER WITH AN EXPENSIVE COMPUTER ALERT!

I can imagine you giving a chess lecture to a class of 15 primary aged kids under 1200 Elo...

Kid 1: Teacher! What are we learning today?

Milos: We are going to spend 25 minutes looking at a key position in a TCEC game between Stockfish and Komodo... Komodo is now *OFFICIALLY* a patzer because it missed 37.Rc1 Qa5 38.Qa1 Nf6 39.Bh1 g6 40.Kg2!! with mate in 37! So WEEEEEAK, right?

Advanced Kid 1: Why don't we look at some cool attacking games from Tal instead?

Milos: Tal was a PAZTER! Haven't you checked his games with Stockfish dev on a 32 core......

Kid 2: ...Can we go outside and play?

Milos: No! You have NO IDEA how to play chess yet...stay here....wait...wait...COME BAAAAACK!

*classroom empties*

I'm sure prospective students would be HURLING wads of money at you for lessons.

Especially the parents of little beginning kids wanting to get an edge over the kids in their league.

Especially the parents of advanced kids who already have Stockfish, but want to UNDERSTAND chess, not just read variations from a PV.

You'd soon be a rich man.

You seems like a relic of the past angry that you became more less irrelevant.

36 years old is a "relic of the past" to you? Aren't I one of the youngest people on this forum? I'd be curious to know of the people who are substantially younger.

Irrelevant? When Chinese parents are paying you $70 USD (the equivalent of 500 CNY, which I charge) for a single hour of coaching (which I have them lining up to do), give me your opinions about what is "relevant" in chess coaching...until then, YOU are irrelevant.

And by the way, here's one for you...

If chess coaching without engines is irrelevant, then why do most math teachers refuse to allow their students to use a calculator when solving problems?

Any ideas? Think about it... Take your time...

Correct. Because a prospective student must learn to analyze themselves before using aids.

The same goes for chess and engines. The same goes for sportspeople and "supplements".

To build competence in anything, you have to build a foundation alone first.

Debate this all you like, you'll only expose your own ignorance.

When your coaching can take students from 1300 to 2000/2100 in 1.5 years (as mine has in several cases), I'll take your advice into consideration.

While you're merely shitting on people on a bulletin board out of sheer mean-spiritedness, it means nothing to me.

If you are looking to find some poetry and art in chess sure you can have your subjective feeling and that's perfectly fine.

I wasn't asking for your permission. This is your problem, assuming that people need your agreement in order for them to be okay.

Your opinions have the weight of an ant's turd when it comes to the appreciation of chess and chess coaching in general...so drop the attitude.

Lc0 played pretty crappy opening and that queen sac was the best move at the given point in time.

The opening is fine in human to human games, and this is why I test these openings, for myself to play if nice ideas come up.

Regardless, if the opening was so "crappy", it wouldn't have survived or especially defeated such a strong opponent...queen sac or not. Your logic is flawed.

The game was not decisive at that point by any mean, but Ethereal had a really good advantage which would be, and I have no doubt about that in my mind, converted to a win in a high level correspondence game no matter the effort you put on the defending side.

High-level correspondence game? Who cares? This is the equivalent of saying "Assuming perfect play, I think x"...it means nothing in the big picture of things. How many of Tal, Kasparov or even Carlsen's opponents had "really good advantages" before being brutally outplayed? Many of them.

This "assuming perfect play" bullshit is irrelevant. It's like saying "If Germany transferred tanks from here to there in WW2, assuming nothing went wrong, they'd have won WW2" - who cares! They lost and your speculation about other possibilities or "very good advantages" means nothing.

Everything that happened after that point was trading blunders on both sides in 100% drawn game until move 64.Qd8 that is instant game loss...

This is literally how chess works, Milos. The game is perfect, then mistakes are traded, then someone makes a losing move.

If you played more often (instead of passively watching engines) you'd be well aware of this.

And your claiming that Ethereal lost because of Lc0 queen sac just shows the level of ignorance.

Milos, use that convenient little quote function and show me where I said Ethereal lost "because of the queen sac".

I don't think you can, because I didn't say this. You know someone is losing an argument when they start making shit up.

You are being combative (as usual) just for the sake of it, but this entire thread was to appreciate a beautiful idea.

I have met people like you in OTB tournaments. They're on the losing side of a nice game and then refuse to shake hands or say stupid shit like "I only lost because you know the theory" (in a non-theoretical opening with Nf3, g3, b3, c4 or something) or such things. I remember a guy who I beat who came up to me with his laptop bothering me after the game (during lunch) and was crying about "Stockfish says I was +2...you were LUCKY!".

I assume you'd be similar in an OTB encounter. Your behavior here sort of confirms this.

Lc0 on Titan RTX IMO is very close if not above 3800 Elo in human terms in FIDE TC. Problem is it's almost impossible to verify this.

Wow. I'm so impressed.

One can only speculate about it.

Indeed. You speculate about a lot of things, as we've seen.

[M ANSARI]

Guys ... I think you are getting just way to personal. This was a beautiful game and just play the moves without an engine at first ... then put an engine to try and unravel the rich positions that could have been possible. I think as a human looking at this position

[d]r4rk1/1p2qpbp/2pp1np1/2n5/2PNPBP1/p1N1Q3/PP2B2P/2KR3R w - - 0 18

White could have taken the bull by the horns and ignore pawn takes with check and played Nf5! ... just looks like d6 is weak and white might have time to exploit it. I think that would have avoided that nasty malignant bishop pin that totally paralyzed white.

[d]r4rk1/1p2qpbp/2pp1np1/2n2N2/2P1PBP1/p1N1Q3/PP2B2P/2KR3R b - - 0 18

I suspect that would be what someone like Magnus or Anand would have played as humans tend to try and give back material once they feel a sacrifice is giving up way too much initiative. Of course against an engine this would be suicide, but against another human ... the idea would be to reverse roles and let the other guy work out the crazy complications. Nf5 seems playable as the black Queen has no good squares and will lose a tempo in a very dynamic position if pawn takes N.