Perfect chess engine elo ( 32 men TB) can be within 200 of Stocfish in Tcec LTC conditions

[BrendanJNorman]

And the funniest joke here is the claim stockfish is within 200 Elo of perfect play. And here is what is funny. Since Stockfish 12, the newest Stockfish has gained over 30 Elo. At this rate Stockfish 14 will play perfect chess!

Stockfish 12 didn't gain 200 ELO over the previous version playing from starting position at long time controls as long as you allow for very small (a few kilobytes) opening books so it plays Berlin, Nimzo, Ragozin and ...e5 vs English (even if you just have e4 e5, d4 d5, c4 e5 it should do just fine).
It gained 200 ELO playing blitz from various starting positions. That's the key thing which is claimed: Stockfish won't lose from starting position not that it's perfect in all positions.

Please see the title of this thread. (HINT: It's written in blue above as "Perfect chess engine elo ( 32 men TB) can be within 200 of Stocfish in Tcec LTC conditions")

[BrendanJNorman]

A lot of TB positions have been shown in the previous posts where TB can find the win but not the Stockfish. In those positions, the better side already had certain advantage to win.

Practically, you cant create a 32 men TB that also stores chess knowledge about choosing a move that maximise winning chances as they only know win, draw, loss outcomes. There is no priority of choosing better move that restrict opponent play or maximise opponent blunder chance.

As TB are constructed from the same formula, behaviour of 32 men TB will be exactly the same as 7 men TB. When Stockfish play 1. e4 , TB may play Nf6. 2. d4 Ng8 ( because it knows that it could also be draw).

How can TB get a winning position/ chances by randomly choosing any draw moves. How can TB restrict opponent to maximise it's winning chance? Thus being said, TB will almost always play in inferior side of the drawing position and winning positions from multiple posts are almost never happen to TB ( unrealistic).

Thus being said 32 TB would be the easiest engine ever created in chess. Even 100 elo rated human player may even get a draw against 32 men TB by playing 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Ng8 ( 3 fold repetations).

No as I said before you just do the longest conversions to the next peice set in equal postions This is a proven method the caused havic to humans. Maximizing the chance for non perfect players to blunder. Games would have the potential to last 100s to over 1000 move. With max complexity.

I am not convinced that it is maximizing the chance for non perfect players to blunder and I do not see how you practically do it today even for the 5 piece tablebases or the 4 piece tablebases.

The problem is that the longest conversion is dependent on the history of the game because without history move A is good for the longest conversion but with some history move A force an immediate draw because the opponent is going to claim a draw immediately based on repetition rules.

There are easy draws when conversion is very long and I can easily show you examples when even I can make a draw but the longest conversion is very long.

The engine may like this position as white because the distance to draw is long but the fact is that I draw easily with black.

[d]7k/8/6KP/7P/6BP/7P/7P/8 w - - 0 1

Stockfish thinks white is ahead, while crafty thinks it is equal. Do you know what crafty does to realise it is equal?

Simple. Stockfish plays near-perfect (within 200 Elo) chess and Crafty is much weaker.

Clearly Stockfish knows something Crafty doesn't.

[Alayan]

Please see the title of this thread. (HINT: It's written in blue above as "Perfect chess engine elo ( 32 men TB) can be within 200 of Stocfish in Tcec LTC conditions")

I said I'm out, because there is an astonishing lack of reading comprehension. Your stupid meme made me write this... You'd be ashamed if only you were aware of how wrong you've got what is discussed.

The OP's claim was the following:

If there were no opening book, Stockfish will be minimally able to draw another Stockfish or Leela in 95% of games. If Stockfish is playing against 32 men TB, the extreme condition would be 50 draw 50 losses , which is within 200 elo.

The claim thus was : Stockfish-dev from then (or newer) + Tcec HW (or better) + 120'+10" TC (or better) would not lose as white from the starting position. Which might or might not be accurate, but that's not what you argued against. Technically, you've argued against a strawman all along.

Hint : losing a blitz game as black on a weak laptop is irrelevant.

[mwyoung]

Please see the title of this thread. (HINT: It's written in blue above as "Perfect chess engine elo ( 32 men TB) can be within 200 of Stocfish in Tcec LTC conditions")

I said I'm out, because there is an astonishing lack of reading comprehension. Your stupid meme made me write this... You'd be ashamed if only you were aware of how wrong you've got what is discussed.

The OP's claim was the following:

If there were no opening book, Stockfish will be minimally able to draw another Stockfish or Leela in 95% of games. If Stockfish is playing against 32 men TB, the extreme condition would be 50 draw 50 losses , which is within 200 elo.

The claim thus was : Stockfish-dev from then (or newer) + Tcec HW (or better) + 120'+10" TC (or better) would not lose as white from the starting position. Which might or might not be accurate, but that's not what you argued against. Technically, you've argued against a strawman all along.

Hint : losing a blitz game as black on a weak laptop is irrelevant.

You are crazy. We need to learn to read. Where in the hell does he say "would not lose as white from the starting position."

But here is what is claimed....

"current Stockfish with contempt may be slightly higher rated than 32 men TB in Round Robin rating pool. Prettty crazy right?"


Yes it is crazy, and false logic! You assume because another equal program will draw another equal program. You must be playing near perfect chess.

This is the same logic high rated players of the past used when they said chess was played out. Assuming a high draw rate meant chess was solved by the best players. As we now know this is also false, thanks to the chess engines. As todays engines would crush any player today, or of yesteryear.

And as a 32 man TB would crush Stockfish 12!

[Alayan]

"current Stockfish with contempt may be slightly higher rated than 32 men TB in Round Robin rating pool. Prettty crazy right?"

32-men TB by itself never loses but sucks at winning. Something you're too thick to understand even when it's spelled out slowly. It completely breaks the assumptions of the elo model. That's why considering a "God" entity that knows how to play challenging move is much more interesting than a raw TB.

[mwyoung]

"current Stockfish with contempt may be slightly higher rated than 32 men TB in Round Robin rating pool. Prettty crazy right?"

32-men TB by itself never loses but sucks at winning. Something you're too thick to understand even when it's spelled out slowly. It completely breaks the assumptions of the elo model. That's why considering a "God" entity that knows how to play challenging move is much more interesting than a raw TB.

I noticed, and maybe you should learn to read. You did not answer the question.

Where in the hell does he say "would not lose as white from the starting position."

[BrendanJNorman]

I said I'm out, because there is an astonishing lack of reading comprehension. Your stupid meme made me write this... You'd be ashamed if only you were aware of how wrong you've got what is discussed.

hahaha Yeah, the meme was good for a laugh. I knew some emotional types would probably get triggered.

You must be a young guy like Andrew, right? Were you sobbing when NNUE first came as well? Pretty sure you were.

Shouldn't let things get to you so easily. Come out of the basement once in a while, you'll feel better.

The OP's claim was the following:

If there were no opening book, Stockfish will be minimally able to draw another Stockfish or Leela in 95% of games. If Stockfish is playing against 32 men TB, the extreme condition would be 50 draw 50 losses , which is within 200 elo.

There is no proof AT ALL that chess is a draw with perfect play. And this is the basis for OP's entire hypothesis. In fact, there is more evidence pointing toward perfect chess being a win for white. The overwhelming white wins vs black ratio at ALL levels of chess is not a coincidence.

At the beginning of a chess game, black is trying to stop the wave of white initiative (the advantage of the first move) from engulfing him.

For all we know, a draw occurs when white makes an imprecise move and allows this "wave of initiative" to be stopped - us chessplayers call this "equalizing".

Perfect chess is very likely a constant wave of white initiative ending in a white checkmate.

Hint : losing a blitz game as black on a weak laptop is irrelevant.

If Stockfish played "perfect chess" or was even close, it wouldn't lose such games, regardless of hardware or time control. Most importantly, if Stockfish were close to "perfect chess" you would not be adding Elo at such a fast rate in dev versions.

Forget your math and graphs and emotional triggers and excuses about my "weak laptop" and whatever...perfect chess is impossible to improve upon and "nearly" perfect chess is VERY VERY VERY hard to improve upon - you cannot improve "nearly perfect chess" by 2-3 Elo every day or two, regardless of how you try to rationalize it.

And this rapid improvement is still happening with "perfect" Stockfish.

[BrendanJNorman]

"current Stockfish with contempt may be slightly higher rated than 32 men TB in Round Robin rating pool. Prettty crazy right?"

32-men TB by itself never loses but sucks at winning. Something you're too thick to understand even when it's spelled out slowly. It completely breaks the assumptions of the elo model. That's why considering a "God" entity that knows how to play challenging move is much more interesting than a raw TB.

I noticed, and maybe you should learn to read. You did not answer the question.

Where in the hell does he say "would not lose as white from the starting position."

He is apparently implying it with:

"If Stockfish is playing against 32 men TB, the extreme condition would be 50 draw 50 losses , which is within 200 elo."

The 50 draws would be with white, he imagines.

He is assuming that chess is a forced draw with perfect play and that SF plays perfectly with white.

[mwyoung]

"current Stockfish with contempt may be slightly higher rated than 32 men TB in Round Robin rating pool. Prettty crazy right?"

32-men TB by itself never loses but sucks at winning. Something you're too thick to understand even when it's spelled out slowly. It completely breaks the assumptions of the elo model. That's why considering a "God" entity that knows how to play challenging move is much more interesting than a raw TB.

Again this is just FALSE! I posted example of TB wins with seeming equal positions as suggested by STOCKFISH . I will do so again.

But the god like power of table bases tells a much different story. And this is just with a 6 man position!

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5q1k/6r1/8/8/6R1/2Q5/2K5/8 w - - 0 7"]
[PlyCount "115"]

{[#]} 7. Rh4+ {[%eval 27968,1] [%emt 0:00:06]} Kg8 {[%eval 27968,1] [%emt 0:00:
01]} 8. Qc4+ {[%eval 27969,1] [%emt 0:00:01]} Rf7 {[%eval 27969,1] [%emt 0:00:
01]} 9. Rg4+ {[%eval 27970,1] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kh8 {[%eval 27970,1] [%emt 0:00:
01]} 10. Qd4+ {[%eval 27971,1] [%emt 0:00:01]} Rg7 {[%eval 27971,1] [%emt 0:00:
01]} 11. Rh4+ {[%eval 27972,1] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kg8 {[%eval 27972,1] [%emt 0:00:
01]} 12. Qd5+ {[%eval 27973,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rf7 {[%eval 27973,1] [%emt 0:00:
01]} 13. Rg4+ {[%eval 27974,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kh8 {[%eval 27974,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 14. Qe5+ {[%eval 27975,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rg7 {[%eval 27975,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 15. Rh4+ {[%eval 27976,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg8 {[%eval 27976,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 16. Qe6+ {[%eval 27977,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rf7 {[%eval 27977,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 17. Kb1 {[%eval 27978,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Qb8+ {[%eval 27978,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 18. Kc1 {[%eval 27979,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Qc7+ {[%eval 27979,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 19. Rc4 {[%eval 27980,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Qe7 {[%eval 27980,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 20. Qg4+ {[%eval 27981,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kh8 {[%eval 27981,0] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 21. Qh3+ {[%eval 27982,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg8 {[%eval 27982,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 22. Qg3+ {[%eval 27983,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rg7 {[%eval 27983,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 23. Rc8+ {[%eval 27984,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kh7 {[%eval 27984,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 24. Qh2+ {[%eval 27985,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg6 {[%eval 27985,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 25. Qc2+ {[%eval 27986,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kf6 {[%eval 27986,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 26. Qf2+ {[%eval 27987,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg6 {[%eval 27987,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 27. Rc6+ {[%eval 27988,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg5 {[%eval 27988,0] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 28. Rc5+ {[%eval 27989,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg4 {[%eval 27989,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 29. Qg2+ {[%eval 27990,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kf4 {[%eval 27990,0] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 30. Qh2+ {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg4 {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 31. Qh5+ {[%eval 27992,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg3 {[%eval 27992,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 32. Rc3+ {[%eval 27993,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg2 {[%eval 27993,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 33. Rc2+ {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg3 {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 34. Qh2+ {[%eval 27995,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kg4 {[%eval 27995,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 35. Rg2+ {[%eval 27996,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kf5 {[%eval 27996,0] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 36. Qh3+ {[%eval 27997,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kf4 {[%eval 27997,1] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 37. Rf2+ {[%eval 27998,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Ke4 {[%eval 27998,0] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 38. Re2+ {[%eval 27999,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kd4 {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt 0:00:
00]} 39. Rxe7 {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rxe7 {[%eval 27976,1] [%emt 0:
00:00]} 40. Kd2 {[%eval 27977,1] [%emt 0:00:01]} Rc7 {[%eval 27977,0] [%emt 0:
00:00]} 41. Qd3+ {[%eval 27978,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kc5 {[%eval 27978,1] [%emt 0:
00:00]} 42. Kc3 {[%eval 27979,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rc6 {[%eval 27979,1] [%emt 0:
00:00]} 43. Qd4+ {[%eval 27980,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kb5+ {[%eval 27980,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 44. Kb3 {[%eval 27981,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rc5 {[%eval 27981,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 45. Qd6 {[%eval 27982,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rc6 {[%eval 27982,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 46. Qb4+ {[%eval 27983,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Ka6 {[%eval 27983,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 47. Ka3 {[%eval 27984,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rc1 {[%eval 27984,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 48. Qe4 {[%eval 27985,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rc3+ {[%eval 27985,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 49. Ka4 {[%eval 27986,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rc5 {[%eval 27986,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 50. Qb4 {[%eval 27987,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rc1 {[%eval 27987,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 51. Qb5+ {[%eval 27988,0] [%emt 0:00:01]} Ka7 {[%eval 27988,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 52. Qd3 {[%eval 27989,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kb8 {[%eval 27989,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 53. Qe4 {[%eval 27990,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rc7 {[%eval 27990,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 54. Kb5 {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Ka7 {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 55. Qh1 {[%eval 27992,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rb7+ {[%eval 27992,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 56. Kc6 {[%eval 27993,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kb8 {[%eval 27993,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 57. Qh8+ {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Ka7 {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 58. Qd8 {[%eval 27995,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rf7 {[%eval 27995,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 59. Qb6+ {[%eval 27996,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Ka8 {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 60. Qb3 {[%eval 27997,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Rg7 {[%eval 27997,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 61. Qa2+ {[%eval 27998,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kb8 {[%eval 27998,1] [%emt
0:00:00]} 62. Qb2+ {[%eval 27999,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kc8 {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 63. Qxg7 {[%eval 27999,1] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kb8 {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 64. Qb7# {[%eval 32766,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 1-0

[/pgn]
Results with perfect play!

[pgn][Event "Blitz 5min+1sec"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish 081120"]
[Black "Corsair"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3Q4/q7/8/8/3K4/3p4/3P3k/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "143"]
[TimeControl "300+1"]

{4096MB, Fritz 17.ctg, DESKTOP-CORSAIR} 1. Kxd3 {[%eval 27976,1] [%emt 0:00:00]
} Qa6+ {[%eval 27976,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 2. Ke3 {[%eval 27977,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qh6+ {[%eval 27977,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 3. Ke4 {[%eval 27978,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qe6+ {[%eval 27978,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 4. Kf4 {[%eval 27979,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qf7+ {[%eval 27979,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 5. Ke5 {[%eval 27980,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qh5+ {[%eval 27980,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 6. Kd4 {[%eval 27981,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qg4+ {[%eval 27981,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 7. Kc5 {[%eval 27982,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qf5+ {[%eval 27982,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 8. Qd5 {[%eval 27983,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qc8+ {[%eval 27983,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 9. Kb4 {[%eval 27984,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qb8+ {[%eval 27984,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 10. Kc4 {[%eval 27985,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qc8+ {[%eval 27985,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 11. Qc5 {[%eval 27986,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qa6+ {[%eval 27986,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 12. Kb4 {[%eval 27987,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qd3 {[%eval 27987,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 13. Qf2+ {[%eval 27988,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kh1 {[%eval 27988,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 14. Qe3 {[%eval 27989,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qd6+ {[%eval 27989,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 15. Kb3 {[%eval 27990,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qd5+ {[%eval 27990,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 16. Kb2 {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qb5+ {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 17. Kc2 {[%eval 27992,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qc6+ {[%eval 27992,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 18. Qc3 {[%eval 27993,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qg2 {[%eval 27993,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 19. Qh8+ {[%eval 27994,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kg1 {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 20. Qd4+ {[%eval 27995,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kh2 {[%eval 27995,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 21. Qh4+ {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kg1 {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 22. Kc3 {[%eval 27997,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qa8 {[%eval 27997,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 23. Qg5+ {[%eval 27998,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kf1 {[%eval 27998,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 24. Qb5+ {[%eval 27999,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kg2 {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 25. d4 {[%eval 27989,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qf3+ {[%eval 27989,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 26. Kb4 {[%eval 27990,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qf4 {[%eval 27990,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 27. Qe5 {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qd2+ {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 28. Kc5 {[%eval 27992,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qc3+ {[%eval 27992,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 29. Kd6 {[%eval 27993,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qa3+ {[%eval 27993,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 30. Ke6 {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qa6+ {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 31. Kf5 {[%eval 27995,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qf1+ {[%eval 27995,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 32. Kg6 {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qd3+ {[%eval 27996,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 33. Kg5 {[%eval 27997,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qd2+ {[%eval 27997,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 34. Kf5 {[%eval 27998,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qf2+ {[%eval 27998,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 35. Ke6 {[%eval 27999,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qc2 {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 36. d5 {[%eval 27995,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qc8+ {[%eval 27995,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 37. Kf7 {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qc4 {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 38. Kf6 {[%eval 27997,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qf1+ {[%eval 27997,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 39. Ke7 {[%eval 27998,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qb5 {[%eval 27998,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 40. Qe4+ {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kg3 {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 41. d6 {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qc5 {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 42. Ke6 {[%eval 27995,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qb6 {[%eval 27995,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 43. Qd3+ {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kf4 {[%eval 27996,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 44. Qd5 {[%eval 27997,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kg4 {[%eval 27997,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 45. Kf7 {[%eval 27998,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qf2+ {[%eval 27998,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 46. Kg8 {[%eval 27999,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qf6 {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 47. d7 {[%eval 27989,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qg6+ {[%eval 27989,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 48. Kf8 {[%eval 27990,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qh6+ {[%eval 27990,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 49. Ke7 {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qh4+ {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 50. Kd6 {[%eval 27992,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qd8 {[%eval 27992,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 51. Qe6+ {[%eval 27993,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kf4 {[%eval 27993,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 52. Kc6 {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qa8+ {[%eval 27994,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 53. Kb5 {[%eval 27995,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qb8+ {[%eval 27995,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 54. Qb6 {[%eval 27996,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qe5+ {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 55. Ka6 {[%eval 27997,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qe2+ {[%eval 27997,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 56. Ka7 {[%eval 27998,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qa2+ {[%eval 27998,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 57. Kb8 {[%eval 27999,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Ke4 {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 58. d8=Q {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qh2+ {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 59. Qbc7 {[%eval 27997,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qg1 {[%eval 27997,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 60. Qc2+ {[%eval 27998,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Ke5 {[%eval 27998,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 61. Qh2+ {[%eval 27999,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Qxh2 {[%eval 27998,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 62. Qc7+ {[%eval 27999,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kd4 {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 63. Qxh2 {[%eval 27991,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kd3 {[%eval 27991,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 64. Qf4 {[%eval 27992,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kc3 {[%eval 27992,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 65. Ka7 {[%eval 27993,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kd3 {[%eval 27993,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 66. Ka6 {[%eval 27994,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kc3 {[%eval 27994,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 67. Ka5 {[%eval 27995,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kd3 {[%eval 27995,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 68. Kb4 {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kc2 {[%eval 27996,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 69. Qd6 {[%eval 27997,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kb1 {[%eval 27997,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 70. Qd2 {[%eval 27998,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Ka1 {[%eval 27998,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 71. Ka3 {[%eval 27999,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kb1 {[%eval 27999,1] [%emt 0:00:00]} 72. Qb2# {[%eval 32766,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
1-0

[/pgn]

[BrendanJNorman]

I posted example of TB wins with seeming equal positions as suggested by STOCKFISH

Right. Logic tells us that if there are a lot of positions with a mere 6 pieces that Stockfish falsely evaluates as 0.00 - there will be thousands of positions, even mainstream positions, perhaps even openings that are currently mainline - where Stockfish considers a lot of these close to =

How do we know that even a normal opening like the Queen's Gambit is not a forced loss for white?

We don't. If/When 32 Man TBs come, I predict a ton of mainline openings will be thrown in the trash.

A very realistic scenario is Stockfish playing 1.d4 d5 2.c4 and 32 man TB announcing mate in 56.

32 man TB is a revolution in chess, not a mere 200 Elo above SF with white.