MikeGL wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:MikeGL wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Most people here should be aware, but for those new, I just want to
bring back to life an intriguing thread on talkchess, involving a live chess game between me and Stockfish, played in late 2014:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... be27a1a99c
This is just to show how much analytical effort has gone into developing the right strategies to overpower the top engines.
With each move consistently analysed for half an hour, and Stockfish using 16 threads, the amount of knowledge one gets from similar sessions is certainly tremendous.
And that is only one of maybe more than a thousand similar analytical threads on talkchess during the last 5 years.
Some might try to raise cheating allegations against me, but I am worth
what I am worth.
Where's the complete game of your Qf6+ game, that's brilliant but I also saw a game 10 years earlier (2004) than yours (2014) doing the same mating attack.
[pgn]
[Event "LTU-ch"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2004.04.23"]
[EventDate "2004.04.23"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Henrikas Asauskas"]
[Black "Vidmantas Malisauskas"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "2358"]
[BlackElo "2525"]
[PlyCount "47"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 cxd4 5. Nxd4 a6 6. Bc4 e6
7. Bb3 Be7 8. g4 O-O 9. g5 Nfd7 10. Rg1 Nc5 11. Be3 Nxb3
12. axb3 Nc6 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14. e5 d5 15. Ra4 g6 16. Rh4 c5
17. Rg3 Kg7 18. Qf3 Bb7 19. Qf6+ Bxf6 20. gxf6+ Kg8 21. Rxh7
Kxh7 22. Rh3+ Kg8 23. Bh6 Qc7 24. f4 1-0
[/pgn]
[d]r2q1r2/1b2bpkp/p3p1p1/2ppP1P1/7R/1PN1BQR1/1PP2P1P/4K3 w - - 0 1
Before the Qf6+ sac of Henrikas.
edit: I tried your Fischer positions above, SF8 dev finds h4 as best (7 secs on my old machine), and on another position Nikolic
lost because he allowed Bxf4 when Nh3 could give slight plus for white according to SF8
dev. So Bg4 was not considered as best by SF8 dev because there are refutations. In short,
all positions you posted above is easy for SF8 dev on my archaic 32 bit machine running only at
2.0 GHz.
You are mostly talking BS, as usual.
1. in Nikolic-Fischer, Bg4 is a proven best move, Andrew already posted about it a whole thread on the main forum 2 years ago or so, Bg4 is winning, no doubt about it, and it ONLY confirms the validity of my chess knowledge concept, twice backward shelter pawn on f2/c2; what SF considers as REFUTATION on your computer is completely off the point, SF can see nothing in this position, as it is very deep
2. in the other position, SF might see h4 by a miracle on your computer, but what is the score? On my computer, SF does not pick it easily.
3. Asauskas played a great game, but then Malisauskas played very weak...

; well, just the pattern is the same, twice backward shelter pawn on f7, but the game itself and the key position is very shallow and dull, don't you agree, mate in 5 or so, every engine will see, even Skipper? You can't compare my position, which is much deeper, mate in 20 or so, and much more beautiful, and which neither top engines sees, with this one, can you?; if you mean I copy-pasted it, it is the first time I see this game
Concenring my game with SF, no full record, it started a bit later into the game, please read the whole thread, should I read it instead for you.
I am talking BS? You're funny.
First, I am still waiting for the complete PGN of your amazing Qf6
combination, since I already caught you lying more than 3 times without
even a single apology from you. Why lie just to prove a point?
This is just a chess engine forum with nothing to prove here.
I can also post something like this:
[d]N2r4/1k3p1p/3p2p1/3p1p2/1P1B4/bPqpP1P1/P4P2/RK1Q4 b - - 0 1
And claim I can win easily with QxB and all engines are blind on this
Q sac combination, and take credit that I am stronger than any engines on
the planet. But of course this is just a modified test suite to
fit my argument. Seems like this is what you did. (If you CAN NOT post the complete game of your above Qf6! brilliancy, then I will doubt your credibility, due to a dozen lies of you posted on other threads)
Please prove the authenticity of that game by posting the complete game
and the engine version you used so I can check and verify.
1.Your first point, yes, Bg4 is dubious according to SF latest dev version and there are other
stronger winning moves. I already told you, that after Nh3, there is no way black can proceed a win according to SF, otherwise you can prove me wrong if you can post the winning line.
2. Your second point,, the move h4 in latest SF dev is the only positive score given by SF dev,
I don't lie like what you're always doing, where you even modify a PV intentionally and then conveniently escape by claiming your engine is buggy and it displayed wrong PV.
Here:

Does that satisfy you? Because no other moves are better than h4, doesn't matter what engine score is on this move.
Because no other better alternative in a Multi-PV.
To think this is just 7 seconds on a 10 year old 32bit machine, using a 32bit SF8 dev.
3.No you are caught lying for the 4th time, Qf6 done by Asauskas is difficult for current engines. You just modified a difficult test suite and claim you have beaten an engine to prove your point that you're stronger
than any engines.
Concenring my game with SF, no full record, it started a bit later into the game, please read the whole thread, should I read it instead for you.
This is your 5th lie, because you can even remember the winning
combination because this game is very special, and yet you can't
remember the whole game? LOL even a 1200 player can remember the
complete game by heart of his amazing combinations. I can remember
complete games (more than 30) of my combinations and amazing sacrifices since grade school.
You EVEN CLAIMED THE GAME WAS LIVE, isn't it? Now you can't trace your online LIVE game done in talkchess? Even if it is not live, you can still remember it, because you claimed you are 2100+ in strength. 5th lie.