and yet, with every single new version, the evaluation of Stockfish only seems to improve. once you try to simplify it or introduce terms that don't reflect objective knowledge, and you see a regression.APassionForCriminalJustic wrote: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.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote: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?
it is quite the other way round, dear Adam, the human brain is a much more powerful tool than any existing machine, you just have to discover it.