lkaufman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:39 pm
Have people tried entering latest Stockfish on good hardware in Rapid (not blitz) online tournaments with NO BOOK?
Those tourneys don't exist anymore, the slowest time control that remains is 5 +3 time control.
But, you know, in the past people didn't play at 10 hour long games, then they didn't play 4 long hour games, or 2 hour long games, or 1 hour long games, and the CCRL used to play 40/40 but later on shortened it to 40/15.
It seems the solution of the perceived draw death is to shorten the time control tested because the engines don't need the extra time to play well anymore, why do we waste time giving it to the engines if more time mostly doesn't help them anymore?
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
Lazy_Frank wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:52 pm
That is exactly what i try to do - create map or collection of dubious opening lines. Currently i covered 2 ply and 3 ply openings.
Not so much in 2 ply: just 1. a4 f6 and 1. h3 h5.
At 3-ply covered and approved 86 lines.
4-ply in process (674 lines in consideration to be good, 4140 lines remains to check).
Tree expands numerously be each next ply.
I think most of that information is uninteresting because one of the sides will never play one of the moves, so those positions will never happen.
It's more interesting to have one side playing the strongest moves, and the other side playing the dubious moves (say, we have a strongest attack that beats 1.g4, but it only requires a winning move by black, and we prune the rest.)
This way the tree will not expand as much and we'll know where the draw line is.
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
lkaufman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:34 pm
If playing the Berlin and Nimzo (for example) is always good enough to draw
It is not, as I said, what we lack is enough incentive for people to bust those lines, I know some people who could, it makes no sense to talk about the moves an engine would play without a book, because those moves could be added to a book and if they're played instantly then the engine has more time to play stronger the rest of the game, so it's more important to talk about the latter case where the book exists, and then it can be busted.
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
That's because white isn't playing the most pressing line, now, I'm not one of the guys I mention, but I'll drop a name: Qwe1123 at playchess, he could create a white line that beats Dragon-2.6 if the french was played and it tried to defend it without book.
If you wanna do a test, create a free playchess account, use Stockfish to get it to a high rating Qwe1123 is interested in playing, then, when he challenges you to a game, switch to Dragon 2.6 without book, and watch how it's destroyed, because I've seen him destroy strong Stockfish lines, dealing with Dragon would be no problem, but your rating points would be his incentive to show you the line you don't know that beats bookless Dragon.
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
lkaufman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 5:48 am
I admit that it is a bit strange to see +0 =68 -0 in ccrl 40/15, but +13 =137 -0 in 60'+15"
You would have to confirm with Graham, but I think 52 of those 68 games came from his IECGMasters.cgb book, which he notes as
"Made from games between players rated 2400+ in the IECG". It appears to be 8 moves deep.
I've got news for you, nowadays 2 0 games are of stronger quality than the correspondence chess games played at IECG. Positions that used to be equal and reasonable even after spending days analyzing a move are now showing some +1.45 score by Stockfish dev.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:37 pm
The main question if there are equal positions that give both sides better chances to win so the better engine can win.
Note that not all the drawn equal positions are the same
You may try some unbalanced positions when one side has more material but the opponent has a positional compensation and maybe white and black will get 50% but there will be less draws if you play stockfish vs stockfish with 1:10 time handicap.
Probably such positions exist, but don't often occur naturally in normal games. So this creates a third category of possible book, balanced but unnatural!
That's because white isn't playing the most pressing line, now, I'm not one of the guys I mention, but I'll drop a name: Qwe1123 at playchess, he could create a white line that beats Dragon-2.6 if the french was played and it tried to defend it without book.
If you wanna do a test, create a free playchess account, use Stockfish to get it to a high rating Qwe1123 is interested in playing, then, when he challenges you to a game, switch to Dragon 2.6 without book, and watch how it's destroyed, because I've seen him destroy strong Stockfish lines, dealing with Dragon would be no problem, but your rating points would be his incentive to show you the line you don't know that beats bookless Dragon.
But the French is rarely played at 2800 human level in important classical games. The question is whether anyone can create a book that can defeat any top engine (Dragon, SF, Lc0 or variants) on good hardware in Rapid chess (or 5' + 3" if that's the slowest where you have data) if the engine, playing either without a book or just a very shallow one, plays the Berlin (or Italian if White prefers 3.Bc4)? Are there any games where a top engine has lost under those conditions recently (excluding time forfeits, disconnects, obvious bad book move, etc.)?
Lazy_Frank wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:52 pm
That is exactly what i try to do - create map or collection of dubious opening lines. Currently i covered 2 ply and 3 ply openings.
Not so much in 2 ply: just 1. a4 f6 and 1. h3 h5.
At 3-ply covered and approved 86 lines.
4-ply in process (674 lines in consideration to be good, 4140 lines remains to check).
Tree expands numerously be each next ply.
I think most of that information is uninteresting because one of the sides will never play one of the moves, so those positions will never happen.
It's more interesting to have one side playing the strongest moves, and the other side playing the dubious moves (say, we have a strongest attack that beats 1.g4, but it only requires a winning move by black, and we prune the rest.)
This way the tree will not expand as much and we'll know where the draw line is.
From point of game end result there is no difference you play 1. e4 or 1. d4 or 1. g3 or 1. Nf3 or 1. f3 or 1. h3 - objective it is draw anyway.
There isn't so much theory for such moves as 1. h3 that is reason why humans and GM do not play this move.
Lazy_Frank wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:52 pm
That is exactly what i try to do - create map or collection of dubious opening lines. Currently i covered 2 ply and 3 ply openings.
Not so much in 2 ply: just 1. a4 f6 and 1. h3 h5.
At 3-ply covered and approved 86 lines.
4-ply in process (674 lines in consideration to be good, 4140 lines remains to check).
Tree expands numerously be each next ply.
I think most of that information is uninteresting because one of the sides will never play one of the moves, so those positions will never happen.
It's more interesting to have one side playing the strongest moves, and the other side playing the dubious moves (say, we have a strongest attack that beats 1.g4, but it only requires a winning move by black, and we prune the rest.)
This way the tree will not expand as much and we'll know where the draw line is.
From point of game end result there is no difference you play 1. e4 or 1. d4 or 1. g3 or 1. Nf3 or 1. f3 or 1. h3 - objective it is draw anyway.
There isn't so much theory for such moves as 1. h3 that is reason why humans and GM do not play this move.
stating whether some moves are good or bad based solely on the outcome of a perfect game is not a good way to choose moves. The best move must also be based on which one gives you the best chance of winning assuming an imperfect play on both sides.
Lazy_Frank wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:52 pm
That is exactly what i try to do - create map or collection of dubious opening lines. Currently i covered 2 ply and 3 ply openings.
Not so much in 2 ply: just 1. a4 f6 and 1. h3 h5.
At 3-ply covered and approved 86 lines.
4-ply in process (674 lines in consideration to be good, 4140 lines remains to check).
Tree expands numerously be each next ply.
I think most of that information is uninteresting because one of the sides will never play one of the moves, so those positions will never happen.
It's more interesting to have one side playing the strongest moves, and the other side playing the dubious moves (say, we have a strongest attack that beats 1.g4, but it only requires a winning move by black, and we prune the rest.)
This way the tree will not expand as much and we'll know where the draw line is.
From point of game end result there is no difference you play 1. e4 or 1. d4 or 1. g3 or 1. Nf3 or 1. f3 or 1. h3 - objective it is draw anyway.
There isn't so much theory for such moves as 1. h3 that is reason why humans and GM do not play this move.
stating whether some moves are good or bad based solely on the outcome of a perfect game is not a good way to choose moves. The best move must also be based on which one gives you the best chance of winning assuming an imperfect play on both sides.
I am already awaiting this argument.
Yes, moves has the different winning chances, usually you must play moves which maximize your chances.
But now look this way ...
You know your opponent is well prepared against your first move 1.e4.
1. g3 or even 1. h3 gives you " ... best chance of winning assuming an imperfect play"?
