Zenmastur vs Ovyron No it's not another GROB!

[Uri Blass]

8.Nge2

Correctly predicted moves: 1/3

Turns out predicting is very fun! I wonder how long can I go?

Predict: 11.d5

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6

[d]rnb1k2r/ppp1np1p/3p1q1b/8/3PPppP/2N5/PPP1N1P1/R1BQKB1R w KQkq -

If you can predict all moves of the opponent and still lose because you predict too late that you are going to lose
then I guess it is good enough for white and you will get the conclusion that you need a better hardware.

[Ovyron]

Nothing but cheap parlor tricks!

What I'm showcasing here is that YOU HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PLAY THE MOVES I PREDICT. I have no idea how good 3...d6 actually is, it may be third best, but it was the move that allowed me to do this.

I'm demonstrating what needs to be done to nullify someone else's hardware advantage since I can see what you're going to play several miles off.

For comparison you wouldn't be able to predict my moves because I could just play something else to make your prediction wrong. Like here, I could have comfortably played 9...Bd7 or 9...O-O and proved whatever you predicted wrong. A luxury you do not have as I'm playing you like a marionette.

Right predictions: 2

Prediction: 12.Nbc3

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6 9. Qd2 Nbc6

[d]r1b1k2r/ppp1np1p/2np1q1b/8/3PPppP/2N5/PPPQN1P1/R1B1KB1R w KQkq -

[Zenmastur]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6 9. Qd2 Nbc6 10.Nb5

[d]r1b1k2r/ppp1np1p/2np1q1b/1N6/3PPppP/8/PPPQN1P1/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 9 10

[Ovyron]

10.Nb5

Dance! Dance!

Right predictions: 3

Prediction: 13.Nxf4

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6 9. Qd2 Nbc6 10. Nb5 Kd8

[d]r1bk3r/ppp1np1p/2np1q1b/1N6/3PPppP/8/PPPQN1P1/R1B1KB1R w KQ -

[Zenmastur]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6 9. Qd2 Nbc6 10. Nb5 Kd8 11.d5

[d]r1bk3r/ppp1np1p/2np1q1b/1N1P4/4PppP/8/PPPQN1P1/R1B1KB1R b KQ - 0 11

[Uri Blass]

Nothing but cheap parlor tricks!

What I'm showcasing here is that YOU HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PLAY THE MOVES I PREDICT. I have no idea how good 3...d6 actually is, it may be third best, but it was the move that allowed me to do this.

I'm demonstrating what needs to be done to nullify someone else's hardware advantage since I can see what you're going to play several miles off.

For comparison you wouldn't be able to predict my moves because I could just play something else to make your prediction wrong. Like here, I could have comfortably played 9...Bd7 or 9...O-O and proved whatever you predicted wrong. A luxury you do not have as I'm playing you like a marionette.

Right predictions: 2

Prediction: 12.Nbc3

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6 9. Qd2 Nbc6

[d]r1b1k2r/ppp1np1p/2np1q1b/8/3PPppP/2N5/PPPQN1P1/R1B1KB1R w KQkq -

The fact that you can see what the opponent is going to play some moves forward does not prove that you can nullify the hardware advantage assuming that you do not see all the game in advance.

I did not analyze this game but in theory there may be a long forced line(from white point of view) that is winning for white when you see the first 20 moves of it but evaluate the position wrong as a draw.

[zullil]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6 9. Qd2 Nbc6 10. Nb5 Kd8 11.d5

[d]r1bk3r/ppp1np1p/2np1q1b/1N1P4/4PppP/8/PPPQN1P1/R1B1KB1R b KQ - 0 11

Unassisted Stockfish now at 0.00. Depth 70, but no 7-man endgame tables. Looks like Ovyron is being led like a lamb to the slaughter, unaware of who's really in charge here.

[drewdrew]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6 9. Qd2 Nbc6 10. Nb5 Kd8 11.d5

[d]r1bk3r/ppp1np1p/2np1q1b/1N1P4/4PppP/8/PPPQN1P1/R1B1KB1R b KQ - 0 11

Unassisted Stockfish now at 0.00. Depth 70, but no 7-man endgame tables. Looks like Ovyron is being led like a lamb to the slaughter, unaware of who's really in charge here.

lc0-384x30-t60-3070, also unassisted, at -0.32, depth 45. So far - since my last comment - lc0 and SF-dev have been following the same line as the one played here.

[Zenmastur]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6 9. Qd2 Nbc6 10. Nb5 Kd8 11.d5

[d]r1bk3r/ppp1np1p/2np1q1b/1N1P4/4PppP/8/PPPQN1P1/R1B1KB1R b KQ - 0 11

Unassisted Stockfish now at 0.00. Depth 70, but no 7-man endgame tables. Looks like Ovyron is being led like a lamb to the slaughter, unaware of who's really in charge here.

lc0-384x30-t60-3070, also unassisted, at -0.32, depth 45. So far - since my last comment - lc0 and SF-dev have been following the same line as the one played here.

Once I got a graphics card that could run NN engines at a reasonable speed I thought this would "fix" many of Lc0 short comings. It hasn't. I ran Lc0 side-by-side with Stockfish for several hours last night while I was analyzing. When ever Lc0 would select a different line than SF I would save both and then analyze them to see which was "right" or "better" or which had errors in it. In every case I investigated Lc0 lines had errors in it. By "errors" I mean moves in the line that evaluated significantly different than the evaluation given to the line as a whole by Lc0. This wasn't a one-off per line of analysis, there were several moves like this in each of Lc0 prefered lines. I tried several different nets, including 62078 320x24 and segio's 512x40 test net. I figured the larger nets would do better since the analysis times, while they varied, were around 300 seconds per move. This didn't seem to help.

So, anyone have any suggestions on a net that under longtime control doesn't have this issue?

[drewdrew]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Qf6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Nge2 Bh6 9. Qd2 Nbc6 10. Nb5 Kd8 11.d5

[d]r1bk3r/ppp1np1p/2np1q1b/1N1P4/4PppP/8/PPPQN1P1/R1B1KB1R b KQ - 0 11

Unassisted Stockfish now at 0.00. Depth 70, but no 7-man endgame tables. Looks like Ovyron is being led like a lamb to the slaughter, unaware of who's really in charge here.

lc0-384x30-t60-3070, also unassisted, at -0.32, depth 45. So far - since my last comment - lc0 and SF-dev have been following the same line as the one played here.

Once I got a graphics card that could run NN engines at a reasonable speed I thought this would "fix" many of Lc0 short comings. It hasn't. I ran Lc0 side-by-side with Stockfish for several hours last night while I was analyzing. When ever Lc0 would select a different line than SF I would save both and then analyze them to see which was "right" or "better" or which had errors in it. In every case I investigated Lc0 lines had errors in it. By "errors" I mean moves in the line that evaluated significantly different than the evaluation given to the line as a whole by Lc0. This wasn't a one-off per line of analysis, there were several moves like this in each of Lc0 prefered lines. I tried several different nets, including 62078 320x24 and segio's 512x40 test net. I figured the larger nets would do better since the analysis times, while they varied, were around 300 seconds per move. This didn't seem to help.

So, anyone have any suggestions on a net that under longtime control doesn't have this issue?

Not exactly sure, but the line given by SV-384x30-t60-3070 was in agreement with SF for more than 30 plies - when I checked them both a few moves ago -.