GM Awonder Liang vs Leela Knight Odds Rapid match

[Brunetti]

Giving up the rook will also get you checkmated eventually with perfect play, so why is it a better move than ...Kg7?

Well, Re8, I think, is better because ...Kg7 also leads to a quick defeat with perfect play, but at least it doesn’t give White the chance to get mated immediately. So the question is: why Kg7 is a better move than ...Re8?

Alex

[lkaufman]

Giving up the rook will also get you checkmated eventually with perfect play, so why is it a better move than ...Kg7?

Well, Re8, I think, is better because ...Kg7 also leads to a quick defeat with perfect play, but at least it doesn’t give White the chance to get mated immediately. So the question is: why Kg7 is a better move than ...Re8?

Alex

Because finding the sacrificial checkmate combination, with no hint that there is one, is more difficult than winning the game if Black just gives up a rook. To put it another way, giving up the rook is like resigning (unless there is a hope of flagging the opponent), whereas evan a GM might very well miss the brilliant mate in a practical game. If two moves are equally good against perfect play, the "better" move (as generally understood) is the one that maximizes your expected result (win or draw). It may depend on the opponent, but in this case it's pretty clear which is the best practical chance.

[Brunetti]

Because finding the sacrificial checkmate combination, with no hint that there is one, is more difficult than winning the game if Black just gives up a rook. To put it another way, giving up the rook is like resigning (unless there is a hope of flagging the opponent), whereas evan a GM might very well miss the brilliant mate in a practical game. If two moves are equally good against perfect play, the "better" move (as generally understood) is the one that maximizes your expected result (win or draw). It may depend on the opponent, but in this case it's pretty clear which is the best practical chance.

I understand that finding the mate isn’t easy, but if White doesn’t find it, it’s not like Black is saved; it’s more or less the same as in the other line, in a desperate situation, still losing more material anyway. What am I missing?

Alex

[Father]

Giving up the rook will also get you checkmated eventually with perfect play, so why is it a better move than ...Kg7?

Well, Re8, I think, is better because ...Kg7 also leads to a quick defeat with perfect play, but at least it doesn’t give White the chance to get mated immediately. So the question is: why Kg7 is a better move than ...Re8?

Alex

Happy night everyone. Today they took me galloping on the tracks of the indoor racecourse... My coach made me run for 22 laps and gallop for 57 laps. On 15 occasions the hare and I crossed the finish line evenly matched. My trainer rewarded me with a concentrated feed for imported racehorses, and also gave me molasses and green grass. I have been told that I am already taking the form of competition. A hug for the sponsors of Leela and others, I hope to have won a place, even if it is on the track that is next to the outside... greetings before Christmas, Catecan.

[lkaufman]

Because finding the sacrificial checkmate combination, with no hint that there is one, is more difficult than winning the game if Black just gives up a rook. To put it another way, giving up the rook is like resigning (unless there is a hope of flagging the opponent), whereas evan a GM might very well miss the brilliant mate in a practical game. If two moves are equally good against perfect play, the "better" move (as generally understood) is the one that maximizes your expected result (win or draw). It may depend on the opponent, but in this case it's pretty clear which is the best practical chance.

I understand that finding the mate isn’t easy, but if White doesn’t find it, it’s not like Black is saved; it’s more or less the same as in the other line, in a desperate situation, still losing more material anyway. What am I missing?

Alex

Black is lost either way, true, but if you play ...Re8 White will take it for sure and normally you would resign. If you play ...Kg7 White has to play a couple of good moves (other than the mate) to make you resign. A practical player who sees that ...Kg7 gets mated will still play it unless he prefers to just resign. In a tournament game I would probably play ...Kg7 immediately without even looking at whether it gets mated, since the other move would feel the same as resigning. This is just a good example of playing practical chess; it's better to have a 1% chance of a win or draw than a 0.001% chance. This is what the Leela Odds bots do so well, they maximize the likelihood of a win or draw against a human opponent of around the level implied by the handicap. Leela has saved many positions worse than the one after ...Kg7 (assuming White doesn't see the mate), in fact just playing queen odds is probably worse than that position in terms of practical chances.

[Father]

Because finding the sacrificial checkmate combination, with no hint that there is one, is more difficult than winning the game if Black just gives up a rook. To put it another way, giving up the rook is like resigning (unless there is a hope of flagging the opponent), whereas evan a GM might very well miss the brilliant mate in a practical game. If two moves are equally good against perfect play, the "better" move (as generally understood) is the one that maximizes your expected result (win or draw). It may depend on the opponent, but in this case it's pretty clear which is the best practical chance.

I understand that finding the mate isn’t easy, but if White doesn’t find it, it’s not like Black is saved; it’s more or less the same as in the other line, in a desperate situation, still losing more material anyway. What am I missing?

Alex

Black is lost either way, true, but if you play ...Re8 White will take it for sure and normally you would resign. If you play ...Kg7 White has to play a couple of good moves (other than the mate) to make you resign. A practical player who sees that ...Kg7 gets mated will still play it unless he prefers to just resign. In a tournament game I would probably play ...Kg7 immediately without even looking at whether it gets mated, since the other move would feel the same as resigning. This is just a good example of playing practical chess; it's better to have a 1% chance of a win or draw than a 0.001% chance. This is what the Leela Odds bots do so well, they maximize the likelihood of a win or draw against a human opponent of around the level implied by the handicap. Leela has saved many positions worse than the one after ...Kg7 (assuming White doesn't see the mate), in fact just playing queen odds is probably worse than that position in terms of practical chances.

..: all this is simply wonderful for me... Leela is on another level... it seems that she has implemented Lasker's competitive thinking... I have begun to detect this in the games against Lerla. I observe in the way this computer acts and thinks something very different from cold or rigid algorithms. Leela has greater flexibility, but the machine is susceptible to biting the long-winded baits that I put in my fishing rod. ..

[Father]

Because finding the sacrificial checkmate combination, with no hint that there is one, is more difficult than winning the game if Black just gives up a rook. To put it another way, giving up the rook is like resigning (unless there is a hope of flagging the opponent), whereas evan a GM might very well miss the brilliant mate in a practical game. If two moves are equally good against perfect play, the "better" move (as generally understood) is the one that maximizes your expected result (win or draw). It may depend on the opponent, but in this case it's pretty clear which is the best practical chance.

I understand that finding the mate isn’t easy, but if White doesn’t find it, it’s not like Black is saved; it’s more or less the same as in the other line, in a desperate situation, still losing more material anyway. What am I missing?

Alex

Black is lost either way, true, but if you play ...Re8 White will take it for sure and normally you would resign. If you play ...Kg7 White has to play a couple of good moves (other than the mate) to make you resign. A practical player who sees that ...Kg7 gets mated will still play it unless he prefers to just resign. In a tournament game I would probably play ...Kg7 immediately without even looking at whether it gets mated, since the other move would feel the same as resigning. This is just a good example of playing practical chess; it's better to have a 1% chance of a win or draw than a 0.001% chance. This is what the Leela Odds bots do so well, they maximize the likelihood of a win or draw against a human opponent of around the level implied by the handicap. Leela has saved many positions worse than the one after ...Kg7 (assuming White doesn't see the mate), in fact just playing queen odds is probably worse than that position in terms of practical chances.

..: all this is simply wonderful for me... Leela is on another level... it seems that she has implemented Lasker's competitive thinking... I have begun to detect this in the games against Lerla. I observe in the way this computer acts and thinks something very different from cold or rigid algorithms. Leela has greater flexibility, but the machine is susceptible to biting the long-winded baits that I put in my fishing rod. ..

Good evening Mr. Larry Kaufman and team Leela. It's time to rest, fatigue is already living
"Catecan" and begins a long nine-day journey through valleys and mountain ranges, he has begun to follow a star in the sky, and has decided to walk after the light of his Programmer. Today I wish all of you the best. The loneliness of the path and the hope of the light that I pursue combine a perfect understanding of hope. I have thought that street fights and the hopes of federated fights after a title are beginning to be things of the past and that above one and all others, there is one's own satisfaction and the teachings that the stars of the heavens give me in the cold and warm nights. My perception points to the understanding of the LeelaOdds machine not from the strength of mathematical intelligence, but from the strength of knowledge that is born from my soul, that strength that our common Programmer has wanted to give to my soul. Happy night everyone. The marker I got at the end of the day and starting the new day, peacefully facing the computer, is enough for me to be happy, and to tell the truth, I don't want anything more. Having trained my pace at greater speed, I notice that with more time in battle control, it is much easier for me to understand the subtleties of the computer algorithm. Again to all of you: Thank you.

[Father]

Because finding the sacrificial checkmate combination, with no hint that there is one, is more difficult than winning the game if Black just gives up a rook. To put it another way, giving up the rook is like resigning (unless there is a hope of flagging the opponent), whereas evan a GM might very well miss the brilliant mate in a practical game. If two moves are equally good against perfect play, the "better" move (as generally understood) is the one that maximizes your expected result (win or draw). It may depend on the opponent, but in this case it's pretty clear which is the best practical chance.

I understand that finding the mate isn’t easy, but if White doesn’t find it, it’s not like Black is saved; it’s more or less the same as in the other line, in a desperate situation, still losing more material anyway. What am I missing?

Alex

Black is lost either way, true, but if you play ...Re8 White will take it for sure and normally you would resign. If you play ...Kg7 White has to play a couple of good moves (other than the mate) to make you resign. A practical player who sees that ...Kg7 gets mated will still play it unless he prefers to just resign. In a tournament game I would probably play ...Kg7 immediately without even looking at whether it gets mated, since the other move would feel the same as resigning. This is just a good example of playing practical chess; it's better to have a 1% chance of a win or draw than a 0.001% chance. This is what the Leela Odds bots do so well, they maximize the likelihood of a win or draw against a human opponent of around the level implied by the handicap. Leela has saved many positions worse than the one after ...Kg7 (assuming White doesn't see the mate), in fact just playing queen odds is probably worse than that position in terms of practical chances.

..: all this is simply wonderful for me... Leela is on another level... it seems that she has implemented Lasker's competitive thinking... I have begun to detect this in the games against Lerla. I observe in the way this computer acts and thinks something very different from cold or rigid algorithms. Leela has greater flexibility, but the machine is susceptible to biting the long-winded baits that I put in my fishing rod. ..

Good evening Mr. Larry Kaufman and team Leela. It's time to rest, fatigue is already living
"Catecan" and begins a long nine-day journey through valleys and mountain ranges, he has begun to follow a star in the sky, and has decided to walk after the light of his Programmer. Today I wish all of you the best. The loneliness of the path and the hope of the light that I pursue combine a perfect understanding of hope. I have thought that street fights and the hopes of federated fights after a title are beginning to be things of the past and that above one and all others, there is one's own satisfaction and the teachings that the stars of the heavens give me in the cold and warm nights. My perception points to the understanding of the LeelaOdds machine not from the strength of mathematical intelligence, but from the strength of knowledge that is born from my soul, that strength that our common Programmer has wanted to give to my soul. Happy night everyone. The marker I got at the end of the day and starting the new day, peacefully facing the computer, is enough for me to be happy, and to tell the truth, I don't want anything more. Having trained my pace at greater speed, I notice that with more time in battle control, it is much easier for me to understand the subtleties of the computer algorithm. Again to all of you: Thank you.

Table of results in my first match against LeelaQueenForKnight at ten games time control 3 minutes plus two seconds increment per move.
LeelaQueenForKnight 1 win and 9 draws.
Catecan 1 defeat and 9 draws.
Final result: Leela 5.5.
Cathecan 4.5.

[Uri Blass]

In principle, it would be nice to have a leaderboard like the queen odds one for rook odds and knight odds. The problem is that the only players who can score around 50% or better so far are strong GMs playing Rapid, but few of them so far have been willing to devote the time to playing rapid, instead preferring to lose at blitz. Perhaps if we see enough strong GMs playing Rapid against the bots it will make sense to have a leaderboard.

At least for the rook odds version I find it hard to believe that FM's or IM's cannot beat it in 15+10
History of last winners against the rook odd of at least one game with black.(no more than 3 weeks ago)

1)Sir_Patzer (2541) 3+2
2)DannyStoll(22(2284?) 15+10
3)FM veni_vidi_vici2007(2682?) 10+10
4)Monchi(2471) 15+10
5)CurtVonBardeleben(1962?) 15+10 3 times
6)MassivePackage(2345) 5+3
7)BuckT(1500?) 3+10 (3 games)
8)slomka88(2325) 5+3
9)ScheveningenSea(2717)
10)turton(1500?)
11)jlhammer(GM Jon Ludvig Hammer)(2444?) 5+3
12)FM OjaiJoao(2546) 5+5
13)Stockblunder(1500?) 10+2
14)No_Move_Left(2564) 3+2
15)nebulosastella(1760?) 15+10
16)Bonitta 2502(3+2) lost 44-1 with 6 draws

I will check the record of other winners

[Marcus91]

In principle, it would be nice to have a leaderboard like the queen odds one for rook odds and knight odds. The problem is that the only players who can score around 50% or better so far are strong GMs playing Rapid, but few of them so far have been willing to devote the time to playing rapid, instead preferring to lose at blitz. Perhaps if we see enough strong GMs playing Rapid against the bots it will make sense to have a leaderboard.

At least for the rook odds version I find it hard to believe that FM's or IM's cannot beat it in 15+10
History of last winners against the rook odd of at least one game with black.(no more than 3 weeks ago)

1)Sir_Patzer (2541) 3+2
2)DannyStoll(22(2284?) 15+10
3)FM veni_vidi_vici2007(2682?) 10+10
4)Monchi(2471) 15+10
5)CurtVonBardeleben(1962?) 15+10 3 times
6)MassivePackage(2345) 5+3
7)BuckT(1500?) 3+10 (3 games)
8)slomka88(2325) 5+3
9)ScheveningenSea(2717)
10)turton(1500?)
11)jlhammer(GM Jon Ludvig Hammer)(2444?) 5+3
12)FM OjaiJoao(2546) 5+5
13)Stockblunder(1500?) 10+2
14)No_Move_Left(2564) 3+2
15)nebulosastella(1760?) 15+10
16)Bonitta 2502(3+2) lost 44-1 with 6 draws

I will check the record of other winners

Probably IM can score around 50% at rook odds in 15+10, but most of the games are blitz where the human score like 10% or so