Computer chess is despised by grandmasters!

[Eduard]

Next 150000 Dollars draw is running

[Event "FIDE World Championship 2021"]
[Site "Dubai"]
[Date "2021.12.01"]
[Round "5.1"]
[White "Nepomniachtchi, Ian"]
[Black "Carlsen, Magnus"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2782"]
[BlackElo "2855"]
[ECO "C88"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. a4
Rb8 9. axb5 axb5 10. h3 d6 11. c3 b4 12. d3 bxc3 13. bxc3 d5 14. Nbd2 dxe4 15.
dxe4 Bd6 16. Qc2 h6 17. Nf1 Ne7 18. Ng3 Ng6 19. Be3 *

as a spectator I would have already left the hall!

[Cornfed]

the objectively best move is always the best move, especially when it comes to victory or defeat. If an GM and even the world champion can't find the best move, it doesn't mean that another player won't find the best move either. Who measures up to be able to judge that? If the best move wins objectively, then such a winning move must be recognized as a win (in the review and analysis with engines).

That is not actually correct, and easy to disprove. We have many game pairs in TCEC between LC0 and Stockfish which ends up in a decisive game pair, eventhough both engines were playing the "best" move all the time. Which tells us, even with 104 Threads, 64GB of Hash, engines can play subotimial "bestmoves"

And also, many times I have seen SF's eval pointing at +2 and ended up drawing the game, again in TCEC

Yup.

There are people who thrive on a need for 'certainty' in their lives or in their pursuits...and we have to pity them as they are susceptible to all kinds of misinformation, even cults. The amateur psychologist in me sees the Cult of the Computer as a chess equivalent to which some flock. Be some posteres among that group or just trolls (we have no way of knowing) it's just best to ignore I guess.

[Madeleine Birchfield]

the objectively best move is always the best move, especially when it comes to victory or defeat. If an GM and even the world champion can't find the best move, it doesn't mean that another player won't find the best move either. Who measures up to be able to judge that? If the best move wins objectively, then such a winning move must be recognized as a win (in the review and analysis with engines).

While engines can find better moves than grandmasters and weaker engines, engines can't find objectively best moves. Objectively best moves can only come from an engine that uses a 32-men endgame tablebase or an opening book that continues until checkmate for every line, and both 32-men endgame tablebases and opening books that continues until checkmate for every line are physically impossible because the number of positions in a 32-men endgame tablebase or in such an opening book exceeds by orders of magnitudes the number of atoms in the universe. Because of that, any engine that can run on any machine on Earth has a chance of choosing suboptimal moves.

[Milos]

the objectively best move is always the best move, especially when it comes to victory or defeat. If an GM and even the world champion can't find the best move, it doesn't mean that another player won't find the best move either. Who measures up to be able to judge that? If the best move wins objectively, then such a winning move must be recognized as a win (in the review and analysis with engines).

Except of course when there are multiple objectively best moves. We are a long way away of knowing what those are in most positions. What’s more useful is knowing the move that gives the most practical chances. If we stipulate that chess is a draw, then the objectively best move might be the one that allows the opponent the greatest chance of making a mistake. How do we determine what that is? We might need a MCTS engine to find those moves.

Technically there are no best moves, for perfect chess entity there are only 3 categories of moves, a winning move and losing move and a draw move in absolutely any position on the board. Since we don't play a perfect chess, the move that has higher score (attributed by the engine) will have a higher probability to be the winning move against any chess entity. There are ofc exceptions, but they are more and more rare as chess software and hardware progresses, therefore we can objectively say that today what a strong engines suggests after reaching a sufficient search depth as the best move is indeed the best move in the given position with a very high probability.

[Uri Blass]

[GMs] understand computerchess better than most of us do.

But not as well as their amateur opposition in the Freestyle chess tournaments, as their withdrawal from the PAL/CSS tournaments made evident, over 15 years ago.

There is no big money in freestyle tournaments so I guess no motivation for strong chess players to participate.

It is also not equal hardware tournament and I guess having a stronger computer is a significant advantage.

Feestyle chess has an extremely high level. Such positions as in game 2 in Dubai can be given up on move 21.

I don't think fast hardware has any advantage. 12 cores are enough. I currently have access to 10 TB 7Men Syzygy. Maybe in January on all 17 TB 7men. I prefer that to hardware that is twice as fast.

As far as I know, grandmasters did not win the PAL tournaments on PlayChess. I don't think GMs have any better computer skills.

I believe that today chess is usually a draw in freestyle unless one player lose on purpose or use his own brain or use a bad book.

If you talk about the past when freestyle was popular then I believe 12 cores were clearly a relatively fast hardware.

[Branko Radovanovic]

While engines can find better moves than grandmasters and weaker engines, engines can't find objectively best moves. Objectively best moves can only come from an engine that uses a 32-men endgame tablebase or an opening book that continues until checkmate for every line, and both 32-men endgame tablebases and opening books that continues until checkmate for every line are physically impossible because the number of positions in a 32-men endgame tablebase or in such an opening book exceeds by orders of magnitudes the number of atoms in the universe. Because of that, any engine that can run on any machine on Earth has a chance of choosing suboptimal moves.

Actually, even a 32-men endgame tablebase is not sufficient for finding a best move.

It's plausible that, if 1.e4 is a theoretical draw, then so is 1.a3 - but this does not mean that these two moves are equally good against an imperfect opponent. Saying that a particular move is "best" means not only that it's theoretically optimal, but that it results in the highest probability of winning (or not losing). So, the best move might actually be a swindle.

Playing high-level chess in the future may involve a some sort of opponent modelling.

[carldaman]

While engines can find better moves than grandmasters and weaker engines, engines can't find objectively best moves. Objectively best moves can only come from an engine that uses a 32-men endgame tablebase or an opening book that continues until checkmate for every line, and both 32-men endgame tablebases and opening books that continues until checkmate for every line are physically impossible because the number of positions in a 32-men endgame tablebase or in such an opening book exceeds by orders of magnitudes the number of atoms in the universe. Because of that, any engine that can run on any machine on Earth has a chance of choosing suboptimal moves.

Actually, even a 32-men endgame tablebase is not sufficient for finding a best move.

It's plausible that, if 1.e4 is a theoretical draw, then so is 1.a3 - but this does not mean that these two moves are equally good against an imperfect opponent. Saying that a particular move is "best" means not only that it's theoretically optimal, but that it results in the highest probability of winning (or not losing). So, the best move might actually be a swindle.

Playing high-level chess in the future may involve a some sort of opponent modelling.

You would also have to take into account the type of opponent, whether human or machine. Nowadays humans mostly play humans, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. Psychological factors can play a role, and moves that make the game difficult for the opponent can be objectively best, even if the engines disagree.

[carldaman]

While engines can find better moves than grandmasters and weaker engines, engines can't find objectively best moves. Objectively best moves can only come from an engine that uses a 32-men endgame tablebase or an opening book that continues until checkmate for every line, and both 32-men endgame tablebases and opening books that continues until checkmate for every line are physically impossible because the number of positions in a 32-men endgame tablebase or in such an opening book exceeds by orders of magnitudes the number of atoms in the universe. Because of that, any engine that can run on any machine on Earth has a chance of choosing suboptimal moves.

Actually, even a 32-men endgame tablebase is not sufficient for finding a best move.

It's plausible that, if 1.e4 is a theoretical draw, then so is 1.a3 - but this does not mean that these two moves are equally good against an imperfect opponent. Saying that a particular move is "best" means not only that it's theoretically optimal, but that it results in the highest probability of winning (or not losing). So, the best move might actually be a swindle.

Playing high-level chess in the future may involve a some sort of opponent modelling.

You would also have to take into account the type of opponent, whether human or machine. Nowadays humans mostly play humans, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. Psychological factors can play a role, and moves that make the game difficult for the opponent can be objectively best, in a practical sense, even if the engines disagree.

[carldaman]

A weak player with a strong engine will not appreciate how grandmasters play and foolishly look down on them, despite not getting the why and how of either the GMs or the engines' moves.

This is essentially the gist of this thread and Chessqueen's thread about Nepo being "stupid for wasting time with a supercomputer".

How've you been Carl? Been a while man!

Hey Brendan!
Still kickin' over here... trying to keep myself busy with various endeavors, but it's been slow going...
How are you doing? Can't wait to see the end result of your joint project with Pawel!

[Eduard]

[GMs] understand computerchess better than most of us do.

But not as well as their amateur opposition in the Freestyle chess tournaments, as their withdrawal from the PAL/CSS tournaments made evident, over 15 years ago.

There is no big money in freestyle tournaments so I guess no motivation for strong chess players to participate.

It is also not equal hardware tournament and I guess having a stronger computer is a significant advantage.

Feestyle chess has an extremely high level. Such positions as in game 2 in Dubai can be given up on move 21.

I don't think fast hardware has any advantage. 12 cores are enough. I currently have access to 10 TB 7Men Syzygy. Maybe in January on all 17 TB 7men. I prefer that to hardware that is twice as fast.

As far as I know, grandmasters did not win the PAL tournaments on PlayChess. I don't think GMs have any better computer skills.

I believe that today chess is usually a draw in freestyle unless one player lose on purpose or use his own brain or use a bad book.

If you talk about the past when freestyle was popular then I believe 12 cores were clearly a relatively fast hardware.

So we have new rules. There are draws with material win and stalemate. There are bonus points for this.