You might think that you are showing that Stockfish dev in good hardware is good enough to find Harvey's and my moves or better, but the truth is that those high depth PVs have been seen by Harvey since a long while and I can see them within 10 minutes, so you could know in advance depth 75's PV within a minute.
If your GUI crashes from boredom it'll be because it's not being put to good use. So much power, and yet...
I think you're ignoring that Louis's SF-dev is only going to those high depths because it's waiting for you to play a move. That doesn't mean that its principal move is found only at depth 60. It may have been found much earlier, and going to higher depths just gives the user more confidence in it.
The interest is not someone's particular hardware configuration. The interest is some engine on its own versus a human plus some engine or engines.
You might think that you are showing that Stockfish dev in good hardware is good enough to find Harvey's and my moves or better, but the truth is that those high depth PVs have been seen by Harvey since a long while and I can see them within 10 minutes, so you could know in advance depth 75's PV within a minute.
If your GUI crashes from boredom it'll be because it's not being put to good use. So much power, and yet...
I think you're ignoring that Louis's SF-dev is only going to those high depths because it's waiting for you to play a move. That doesn't mean that its principal move is found only at depth 60. It may have been found much earlier, and going to higher depths just gives the user more confidence in it.
The interest is not someone's particular hardware configuration. The interest is some engine on its own versus a human plus some engine or engines.
Between 2. g5 and 11. Bd2, each move was found by Stockfish essentially instantly. I mean, as soon as I enter a move, Stockfish is instantly at depth 35 or 40, since it's playing from a full 64 GB hash. Only at one iteration of all the searches between 2. g5 and 11. Bd2 did I see any change in the first dozen moves of the PV---though I must admit I haven't really been paying much attention.
You might think that you are showing that Stockfish dev in good hardware is good enough to find Harvey's and my moves or better, but the truth is that those high depth PVs have been seen by Harvey since a long while and I can see them within 10 minutes, so you could know in advance depth 75's PV within a minute.
If your GUI crashes from boredom it'll be because it's not being put to good use. So much power, and yet...
I think you're ignoring that Louis's SF-dev is only going to those high depths because it's waiting for you to play a move. That doesn't mean that its principal move is found only at depth 60. It may have been found much earlier, and going to higher depths just gives the user more confidence in it.
The interest is not someone's particular hardware configuration. The interest is some engine on its own versus a human plus some engine or engines.
While I agree with Ovyron I will point out that if you, or anyone else, wants to see the difference between the two method this game is likely to disappoint. The structures in this game are not likely to produce position in which one side will win by outsearching the other side. If that is your goal then the best strategy is to look at ICCF games in which one side wins and both sides have ELO of greater than 2500. Then rule out all games in which gross blunders occurred (it happens on occasion even in high level ICCF games) and then find the moves that stockfish disagrees with for the winning side. Many of these moves (but not all) will be the moves you will be looking for. I.e. moves in which a high depth search by stockfish gets it wrong and a CC type search (or compound search) will get it right.
In, short there is no need to wait on this games. There are plenty of game already played that can provide examples. One other note: since I have been playing CC SF has gained over 300 ELO. It would be best to analyze a game which was played at some earlier time with a SF version that was actually available at the time the game was played or you may miss some of the moves because a current version of SF may find what a version of the day could not if using a "normal" search. ("normal" meaning turning the engine on an let it analyze unattended)
Regards,
Zenmastur
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Zenmastur wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:37 pm
While I agree with Ovyron I will point out that if you, or anyone else, wants to see the difference between the two method this game is likely to disappoint. The structures in this game are not likely to produce position in which one side will win by outsearching the other side. If that is your goal then the best strategy is to look at ICCF games in which one side wins and both sides have ELO of greater than 2500. Then rule out all games in which gross blunders occurred (it happens on occasion even in high level ICCF games) and then find the moves that stockfish disagrees with for the winning side. Many of these moves (but not all) will be the moves you will be looking for. I.e. moves in which a high depth search by stockfish gets it wrong and a CC type search (or compound search) will get it right.
...
Regards,
Zenmastur
Well, my main interest in following this game has already vanished. White has already admitted that his analysis claiming a certain draw for White after 1.g4 is flawed.
I was hoping to see him support just one of the many extraordinary claims he has made here at TalkChess. Like this one regarding the Italian Game being busted, for example:
Zenmastur wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:37 pm
While I agree with Ovyron I will point out that if you, or anyone else, wants to see the difference between the two method this game is likely to disappoint. The structures in this game are not likely to produce position in which one side will win by outsearching the other side. If that is your goal then the best strategy is to look at ICCF games in which one side wins and both sides have ELO of greater than 2500. Then rule out all games in which gross blunders occurred (it happens on occasion even in high level ICCF games) and then find the moves that stockfish disagrees with for the winning side. Many of these moves (but not all) will be the moves you will be looking for. I.e. moves in which a high depth search by stockfish gets it wrong and a CC type search (or compound search) will get it right.
...
Regards,
Zenmastur
Well, my main interest in following this game has already vanished. White has already admitted that his analysis claiming a certain draw for White after 1.g4 is flawed.
I was hoping to see him support just one of the many extraordinary claims he has made here at TalkChess. Like this one regarding the Italian Game being busted, for example:
MikeB wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:48 am
From this position, I ran 100 games, 48 wins, 4 losses and 48 draws at a bullet time control in favor of black - which would tend to under represent the number of draws which would occur at a higher level of play.
How did you do this? Did you use your Variety feature?
Zenmastur wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:37 pm
If that is your goal then the best strategy is to look at ICCF games in which one side wins and both sides have ELO of greater than 2500. Then rule out all games in which gross blunders occurred (it happens on occasion even in high level ICCF games) and then find the moves that stockfish disagrees with for the winning side. Many of these moves (but not all) will be the moves you will be looking for. I.e. moves in which a high depth search by stockfish gets it wrong and a CC type search (or compound search) will get it right.
Where is the ICCF archive of games? It's not easy to find on their website.
Are there good examples of such games/moves you can suggest immediately?
Zenmastur wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:37 pm
If that is your goal then the best strategy is to look at ICCF games in which one side wins and both sides have ELO of greater than 2500. Then rule out all games in which gross blunders occurred (it happens on occasion even in high level ICCF games) and then find the moves that stockfish disagrees with for the winning side. Many of these moves (but not all) will be the moves you will be looking for. I.e. moves in which a high depth search by stockfish gets it wrong and a CC type search (or compound search) will get it right.
Where is the ICCF archive of games? It's not easy to find on their website.
Are there good examples of such games/moves you can suggest immediately?
I could never see the archive before I became a member. I'm not sure if that's still true but the archive is found here:https://www.iccf.com/message?message=454
If you can't see it let me know and I'll see about getting some appropriate games to you.
I don't have a good example off the top of my head. This type of analysis takes a LONG time. So be prepared.
Note: this link works for me, but I'm always logged in, so it may not work for you.
Regards,
Zenmastur
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Zenmastur wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:37 pm
If that is your goal then the best strategy is to look at ICCF games in which one side wins and both sides have ELO of greater than 2500. Then rule out all games in which gross blunders occurred (it happens on occasion even in high level ICCF games) and then find the moves that stockfish disagrees with for the winning side. Many of these moves (but not all) will be the moves you will be looking for. I.e. moves in which a high depth search by stockfish gets it wrong and a CC type search (or compound search) will get it right.
Where is the ICCF archive of games? It's not easy to find on their website.
Are there good examples of such games/moves you can suggest immediately?
I could never see the archive before I became a member. I'm not sure if that's still true but the archive is found here:https://www.iccf.com/message?message=454
If you can't see it let me know and I'll see about getting some appropriate games to you.
I don't have a good example off the top of my head. This type of analysis takes a LONG time. So be prepared.
Note: this link works for me, but I'm always logged in, so it may not work for you.
Regards,
Zenmastur
FYI
"Access denied
You are not logged in. Please log in first.
If you logged in before, your session may have timed out or the server may have been reset."
