Eduard wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:58 pm
What excuse? I play on the server. Come by with your engine and your 15.000 euro computer. We play Bullet. I allow you to use all books, I run Stockfish with 8 cores without book. We play 100 bullet games. OK?
I might have tested it myself with Rebel 16.2 on the server. Unfortunately I don't understand the options for Move Overhead. The default value is 7 and can be adjusted between 0 and 25.
Is that 25ms? To be able to play on the server because of LAG I need an overhead of 300ms.
In the past more than 20 years ago there were no fast machines. However, the technology industry has made extreme progress. 20 years ago nobody could have imagined such devices as smartphones. Today everyone has a smartphone. Today everyone has a fast PC. Why shouldn't programmers use this technique to create fast engines? The neural networks are also very new. Before 2017 nobody could have imagined an engine like Lc0 or Stockfish NNUE.
Why should Stockfish be programmed differently? Stockfish uses state-of-the-art technology and is an amazing modern engine. But you wanted to bring back the past. Some here are talking about great knowledge-based engines that understand chess better than stockfish. That may be the case, but on modern computers Stockfish is worlds better, also tactically! I therefore see no point in dealing with engines that dominated the computer chess scene 25 years ago.
I think it's great what's happening with Lc0. Unfortunately, graphics cards are expensive and eat up too much power. The programmers of Komodo Dragon do it better. Great progress has been made in the last 3 years. Ethereal is also interesting. These are engines with a future.
What motivates you to adopt the role of an aggressive gatekeeper in this thread? Why not applaud what the legends of computer chess are attempting here?
Everyone knows Stockfish is strong and so there is no need for you to spend endless paragraphs massaging his back.
Also, the way you say "I play on the server" somehow has the tone that you think you yourself are somehow a "player" here and not merely a mouse-controller (who clicks "accept" when a challenge comes in) for your hacked versions of Stockfish.
Humility goes a long way when criticising the work of people 40 years into their career in the very field you speak on.
The way I read the thread was that Chris and Ed are pushing the boundaries of playing STYLE, whilst still hitting Stockfish-LIKE strength levels.
The CHESS is what matters (for chessplayers, not mouse-clickers), as in GAMES OF CHESS, not how an engine does in cherry-picked test suites.
An artist's work is praised not for a little brushstroke in the corner of the painting, but for the overall picture presented.
It is the same in chess.
