stockfish 10 vs. Mephisto III S Glasgow

[mclane]

Take this game. How do YOU evaluate it and how would YOU continue it ?!

[pgn] Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "26. Nov 2021"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "*"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Qd3 exd4 8.
Nxd4 g6 9. Bg5 Bg7 10. O-O-O Qd7 11. h3 O-O 12. Rhe1 Rfe8 13. Qf3 Nh5 14. g4
Bxd4 15. Rxd4 Ng7 16. Bf6[/pgn]

[amanjpro]

Take this game. How do YOU evaluate it and how would YOU continue it ?!

[pgn] Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "26. Nov 2021"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "*"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Qd3 exd4 8.
Nxd4 g6 9. Bg5 Bg7 10. O-O-O Qd7 11. h3 O-O 12. Rhe1 Rfe8 13. Qf3 Nh5 14. g4
Bxd4 15. Rxd4 Ng7 16. Bf6[/pgn]

That is actually my question, how do you evaluate it, and how it is different from how SF for example does it? You look at the available moves, and see whichever takes you to a better position. There is a different class of analyzing which is, you have an ending in mind and you want to reach there. Both are perfectly effective, both are plans

[amanjpro]

I analyzed it with Zahak (it is black's move), and the plan was to counter attack from QS (namely a5), which is perfectly resonable.

As a human, I might try to defend my KS, but that is mostly because I cannot see deep enough

[AdminX]

I analyzed it with Zahak (it is black's move), and the plan was to counter attack from QS (namely a5), which is perfectly resonable.

As a human, I might try to defend my KS, but that is mostly because I cannot see deep enough

As a human, I guess it depends on the type of player you are. I setup the position in Banksia GUI and used Zahak as well as Fritz 18 (Ginkgo 2021). Fritz likes Re6 as Black and Zahak likes the idea of a5 or b5 for the move as black. Now for me I like Zahak's idea better as a human. I guess that is because I am a 'Fire on Board' type of player when given a change to turn the heat up. That's why I like Tal, Shirov, Bernstein, Morozevich, and MVL.

[amanjpro]

I analyzed it with Zahak (it is black's move), and the plan was to counter attack from QS (namely a5), which is perfectly resonable.

As a human, I might try to defend my KS, but that is mostly because I cannot see deep enough

As a human, I guess it depends on the type of player you are. I setup the position in Banksia GUI and used Zahak as well as Fritz 18 (Ginkgo 2021). Fritz likes Re6 as Black and Zahak likes the idea of a5 or b5 for the move as black. Now for me I like Zahak's idea better as a human. I guess that is because I am a 'Fire on Board' type of player when given a change to turn the heat up. That's why I like Tal, Shirov, Bernstein, Morozevich, and MVL.

This proves the poin that engines have plans too.. Probably not exactly like humans, but a plan nevertheless

[Metaphysician]

After Bf6, white is better. His pieces are on good squares, while black's are somewhat awkwardly placed. And the bishop on f6 is a strong piece.

As black, I would play on the queenside (what else?) and hope not to get mated in the process.

One commenter gave a list of great attacking players, including "Bernstein." Did the commenter perhaps mean (David) Bronstein?

[AdminX]

After Bf6, white is better. His pieces are on good squares, while black's are somewhat awkwardly placed. And the bishop on f6 is a strong piece.

As black, I would play on the queenside (what else?) and hope not to get mated in the process.

One commenter gave a list of great attacking players, including "Bernstein." Did the commenter perhaps mean (David) Bronstein?

Sure did, old age kicking in again! To think I have a copy of 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' sitting on my bookshelf. I hope they won't come and take from me.

[Metaphysician]

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is terrific!

[mclane]

Take this game. How do YOU evaluate it and how would YOU continue it ?!

[pgn] Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "26. Nov 2021"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish"]
[Black "Me"]
[Result "*"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Qd3 exd4 8.
Nxd4 g6 9. Bg5 Bg7 10. O-O-O Qd7 11. h3 O-O 12. Rhe1 Rfe8 13. Qf3 Nh5 14. g4
Bxd4 15. Rxd4 Ng7 16. Bf6[/pgn]

That is actually my question, how do you evaluate it, and how it is different from how SF for example does it? You look at the available moves, and see whichever takes you to a better position. There is a different class of analyzing which is, you have an ending in mind and you want to reach there. Both are perfectly effective, both are plans

I have the position out of Max Euwe: judgement and plan in chess.

Its position 54 on page 49 chapter V of my german translation.

He writes (i sum it up):
Theory claims: white has a clear and big advantage .
But where is the advantage,
Mate attack ?! No.
But white has possibilities to threaten black.

And now listen what euwe says, it is a plan.
If white would be to move and could be able to bring his queen to h6, he would threaten mate.

e.g. 1…Ne6 defends 2.f4 threatens 3.f5

How is this weakness realized?! Out of the weak pawn shield in front of the black king.
The black pawns are on f7 g6 h7 instead of f7 g7 h7.

If the black pawn g6 would still be on g7, white would have gad nothing.
In this situation without black having a black bishop g7 and white having a white bishop on f6 is the pawn move g6 a serious weakness.

Therefore our judgement: white is superior because the black king safety position is weakened.
In the following pages Euwe describes the plan.

For a plan its not important to consider legal moves. The opposite is the case. You have an idea where to put the pieces and THEN
Try to bring the pieces into the position the plan wants.

Therefore it is NOT about maximising the moves (best moves) in a main line to get maximum advantage.
The opposite is a plan.
Manoeuvre the pieces into position the way they fullfill your okan even if you have to play second or third best moves or whatever ranked moves.

Sac your main line (best moves) for the plan.

When Botwinnik did his book about pioneer he called it trajectories. And trajectories did not mean legal moves.
But plan moves.
The job of the program was to find an order and a path to bring this plan real onto the board.

[matejst]

I analyze with engines openings and middlegames all the time -- at 3100+, all NN engines understand these phases of the game better than humans. The opening positions I have usually in front of me are often well investigated, so I can check if engines found the best moves -- and they find it almost all the time. When they chose something else, it is usually worth trying. Their assessment is better than Euwe's [who was superficial in his analyses -- it has even been written about, but don't ask for the references, I just can't remember] -- and, in the last few years, engines have changed how chess is played -- the advantage of the bishop pair is more valued, space is understood differently, and initiative, although its understanding had improved 30 years ago, has become crucial from the first moves.

Some engines have problems in late middlegames and complex endgames, because their search is not fast enough. That's SF's greatest advantage, imho. Indeed, we could say that the lack of "understanding" and "planning" can be seen in such positions. I am sure that we all witnessed engines "losing the plot", "playing without aim" in positions we feel we could handle better. Frank Q's stats could be interesting in this matter, and just a few days ago, John Stanback complained about Wasp being crushed in endgames by SlowChess.

Although they achieve it in a different manner -- I think that engines' "insights" in the game are as valuable as ours.