Human versus Machine

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Anyone interested in human-computer matches might check my new book:
(paperback)

(ebook)

also available on amazon.uk(search by author and title), amazon.de, etc.

Amply commented and diagrammed games.

Seems like the first book with extensive coverage of a large number of winning games against the top engines.

Kasparov, Carlsen and Nakamura still have not written one.

[Milos]

Anyone interested in human-computer matches might check my new book:
(paperback)

(ebook)

also available on amazon.uk(search by author and title), amazon.de, etc.

Amply commented and diagrammed games.

Seems like the first book with extensive coverage of a large number of winning games against the top engines.

Kasparov, Carlsen and Nakamura still have not written one.

Even though you put it in a "Humor & Entertainment " section, much better choice would be "Science Fiction & Fantasy" section.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Anyone interested in human-computer matches might check my new book:
(paperback)

(ebook)

also available on amazon.uk(search by author and title), amazon.de, etc.

Amply commented and diagrammed games.

Seems like the first book with extensive coverage of a large number of winning games against the top engines.

Kasparov, Carlsen and Nakamura still have not written one.

Even though you put it in a "Humor & Entertainment " section, much better choice would be "Science Fiction & Fantasy" section.

for that one, I would agree.

still, the book is worth reading.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

One thing I wonder is why routine books like for example a book treating the Budapest Gambit in the most usual of ways, a book entitled
something like 'Tactics in the Budapest Gambit', or 'Winning Tactics in the Budapest Gambit', that actually just takes ready-made samples
out of some game database, filters the games, and then shows some very obvious tactical solutions, shallow at that, would get much more
attention than a book treating a completely new, original and unsurveyed subject, like the way a human can beat the top engines?

After all, the book about the Budapest(which, btw., might be altogether lost with perfect play) is extremely routine and unoriginal, one could change it
for any good database, while the other book treats topics that have not been treated before.

Why would anyone prefer the first book, any guess?

Has the modern world become so zombied into following routine and repetitiveness, that it would not like anything new?

In the past, people used to cherish new and unchartered waters, but not any more?

In the past, writers who offered something new were highly respected and sought after, but not now?

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Comparing 'The Secret of Chess' and 'Human versus Machine: How to beat Stockfish and Komodo', I wrote the latter much quicker, the former took whole 4 months, but the interesting thing is how notions presented in 'The Secret of Chess' are visible in the games showcased in 'Human versus Machine'.

For example, the games exhibit patterns and notions like:

- twice backward shelter pawn on f7
- pointed chains
- white and black KID structures
- fully closed sides of the board, etc., etc.

all of which could be found in 'The Secret of Chess'.

Of course, it is actually the other way round: the many thousands of games(over 50 000, to be clear) I have played against engines and top engines and the knowledge I derived from them are reflected in the knowledge presented on the pages of 'The Secret of Chess'.

That is how I verified that knowledge: by playing an infinite number of games against the very top, and it seems to work.

If anyone would like to consider the games in 'Human versus Machine' as fake ones, well, you simply don't have a point, looking at the specific positions, you will not find even a single one that even distantly resembles any human or engine game you could find in any database.

There are simply no such games and positions, so who came up with the concept and system?
Also, checking evaluations, you will easily see the games are for real. Current Stockfish development version still does not understand most of them.

Again, why would beating Stockfish and Komodo be less interesting than reproducing a routine game from a public database?

[MikeB]

Anyone interested in human-computer matches might check my new book:
(paperback)

(ebook)

also available on amazon.uk(search by author and title), amazon.de, etc.

Amply commented and diagrammed games.

Seems like the first book with extensive coverage of a large number of winning games against the top engines.

Kasparov, Carlsen and Nakamura still have not written one.

Good luck with the books Lyudmil. Nicely done. Getting it for free is pretty cool ( by using my Amazon points ). Should have it by Saturday.





Will be releasing McBrain 3.0 this Saturday.

[Nay Lin Tun]

Saw the 10 preview pages and you wrote about winning against stockfish 4 with stonewall .Well, Stonewall is notoriously drawish opening (since dinosaur age )against computers, of course at least 99% good players already knew and might have tried against computer already. (similar to a player nicked name Grandfather who frequently posted his drawish games with stone wall here). I can tell the reason behind the loss of computer, it was because black did not develop queen bishop on c8. However I highly doubt that the same opening will work against current stockfish or Komodo of 2017 version. If you play stonewall in either 1. e3, d4, bd3 , f4 , Nf3,Ne5 in whatever order, black will respond with d5, nf6 bf5 or bg4 in either sequence. Black will not badly play like e6 and stop developing c8 bishop in that opening. Of course you may still get a draw 1 in 100 against modern computers and it should be according to your rating difference vs computers. ( your 2100+ FIDE rating vs 3100+ computers)

[MikeB]

Saw the 10 preview pages and you wrote about winning against stockfish 4 with stonewall .Well, Stonewall is notoriously drawish opening (since dinosaur age )against computers, of course at least 99% good players already knew and might have tried against computer already. (similar to a player nicked name Grandfather who frequently posted his drawish games with stone wall here). I can tell the reason behind the loss of computer, it was because black did not develop queen bishop on c8. However I highly doubt that the same opening will work against current stockfish or Komodo of 2017 version. If you play stonewall in either 1. e3, d4, bd3 , f4 , Nf3,Ne5 in whatever order, black will respond with d5, nf6 bf5 or bg4 in either sequence. Black will not badly play like e6 and stop developing c8 bishop in that opening. Of course you may still get a draw 1 in 100 against modern computers and it should be according to your rating difference vs computers. ( your 2100+ FIDE rating vs 3100+ computers)

So why did you reply to my post? You misdirected your reply.

[APassionForCriminalJustic]

Saw the 10 preview pages and you wrote about winning against stockfish 4 with stonewall .Well, Stonewall is notoriously drawish opening (since dinosaur age )against computers, of course at least 99% good players already knew and might have tried against computer already. (similar to a player nicked name Grandfather who frequently posted his drawish games with stone wall here). I can tell the reason behind the loss of computer, it was because black did not develop queen bishop on c8. However I highly doubt that the same opening will work against current stockfish or Komodo of 2017 version. If you play stonewall in either 1. e3, d4, bd3 , f4 , Nf3,Ne5 in whatever order, black will respond with d5, nf6 bf5 or bg4 in either sequence. Black will not badly play like e6 and stop developing c8 bishop in that opening. Of course you may still get a draw 1 in 100 against modern computers and it should be according to your rating difference vs computers. ( your 2100+ FIDE rating vs 3100+ computers)

They are higher than 3100. Humans are nothing to a computer. Lol. Of course you know that - but some do not. Stockfish 4 is a fossil anyways.

[APassionForCriminalJustic]

Comparing 'The Secret of Chess' and 'Human versus Machine: How to beat Stockfish and Komodo', I wrote the latter much quicker, the former took whole 4 months, but the interesting thing is how notions presented in 'The Secret of Chess' are visible in the games showcased in 'Human versus Machine'.

For example, the games exhibit patterns and notions like:

- twice backward shelter pawn on f7
- pointed chains
- white and black KID structures
- fully closed sides of the board, etc., etc.

all of which could be found in 'The Secret of Chess'.

Of course, it is actually the other way round: the many thousands of games(over 50 000, to be clear) I have played against engines and top engines and the knowledge I derived from them are reflected in the knowledge presented on the pages of 'The Secret of Chess'.

That is how I verified that knowledge: by playing an infinite number of games against the very top, and it seems to work.

If anyone would like to consider the games in 'Human versus Machine' as fake ones, well, you simply don't have a point, looking at the specific positions, you will not find even a single one that even distantly resembles any human or engine game you could find in any database.

There are simply no such games and positions, so who came up with the concept and system?
Also, checking evaluations, you will easily see the games are for real. Current Stockfish development version still does not understand most of them.

Again, why would beating Stockfish and Komodo be less interesting than reproducing a routine game from a public database?

Stockfish doesn't need to understand anything. It plays chess at a level that you could not even comprehend... who cares about fluke positions. Sure humans can understand when they've been mated and stuff like that. But chess is nothing more than brute force and computation. Computers have proven that no doubt. There's nothings left anymore for human interferences. Maybe you should consider playing a super GM. Not sure what there is to prove about playing chess versus code that can do things that the human brain simply cannot. The idea of understanding things is completely overrated which is pretty hilarious if you ask me.