mmt Vs. Ovyron (G4 D5 BG2)

[zullil]

His strategy is to play for simply positions with as few lines of “reasonable" play as possible. This way his hardware is less of an obstacle. An example is the 1.g4 lines of play.

His opponents, if they know his weakness, should play for the most complicated lines of play possible. EVEN if it means playing less than best move. This rules out 1.g4 because you are already at such a disadvantage that it restricts your ability to make less than "perfect" moves as doing so results in an immediate loss.

In a “normal” game you would want to avoid trades, keeping the positions open, and tactically VERY sharp! This will maximize the number of lines he has to examine and therefore expose his hardware as a weakness. It's difficult to do that in 1.g4 lines. That is one of the reasons he picked that line of play. Another reason 1.g4 is so appealing to him, if he is playing black, is that the game is already decided. AB engines are very good at dealing with positions where one side has a clear advantage. This nullifies any hardware advantage a prospective opponent has against him. No amount of hardware can make up for the crippled position white has to defend.

Precisely!

Regards,

Zenmastur

We know that Stockfish self-play after g4 results in a draw given sufficient nodes.

Who is we? Where are the data? And, even if true, that's a far cry from showing that 1.g4 is a theoretical draw.

I believe it is. Zenmastur does not.

[mmt]

We know that Stockfish self-play after g4 results in a draw given sufficient nodes.

We do? Link to some games?

[SheikhYerbouti]

We know that Stockfish self-play after g4 results in a draw given sufficient nodes.

We do? Link to some games?

Ovyron said so earlier in thread. Unless he was being OxyMoronic. Ya know with his hardware we would have to question the nodes

[Ovyron]

We know that Stockfish self-play after g4 results in a draw given sufficient nodes.

We do? Link to some games?

Ovyron said so earlier in thread. Unless he was being OxyMoronic. Ya know with his hardware we would have to question the nodes

Those were self-play games that I produced for my game against Harvey, where Stockfish couldn't beat itself. But as it turns out for every single one of them there was a winning move for black, and I'm sure better hardware or higher depth would have found the winning moves. So it's the other way around, Stockfish would win as black given sufficient nodes.

At this point I'd rather attack Zullil's 1.g4 than Zenmastur's 1.g4, since the only chance to find a drawing line, if it exists, is believing that it does. Zenmastur being able to hold the game to move 80 with a sub-2.00 eval and proceeding to lose it would not impress me, I want to see a draw against the best attack I can produce and thus far mmt's defense is the strongest I've seen and see where it's leading (my move on next post so it doesn't get buried on this one.)

But yeah, part of my magic is NOT seeking for the OPTIMAL moves to play, which has been proven to not be attainable in reasonable time with my hardware, but seeking for the MOST EFFICIENT moves, those that would allow me to play the easiest moves to find in reasonable time, that don't need better hardware.

Maybe other people would need better hardware because they can't do this, but if I had faster hardware I'd not play better, I'd just play the same moves that I do, 10 times faster. Would you watch a good movie at ten times the speed so it ends in 12 minutes instead of 120? No, so why would you do that with the analysis of chess positions if the point is the journey, not the destination, and receiving the moves I'm going to make from my future self so I can make them with 0 analysis would ruin all the fun?

[Ovyron]

If axb4 then axb4.

In the -2.80s now.

1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 c6 4. Qb3 e6 5. Qxb7 Nd7 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. d4 Rb8 9. Qa6 Rb6 10. Qd3 Ng6 11. h3 Be6 12. Nf3 Bd6 13. h4 h5 14. b3 Nf6 15. Bg5 O-O 16. e3 Re8 17. Kf1 Bg4 18. Ne1 Bb4 19. Na4 Rb8 20. Nc2 Be7 21. f3 Be6 22. Nc5 Bc8 23. Kf2 Nd7 24. Ne6 Qa5 25. Bxe7 Rxe7 26. b4 Qb6 27. Ng5 Ba6 28. Qa3 Rbe8 29. Bf1 Bxf1 30. Raxf1 Qc7 31. Qd3 a5 32. a3 axb4 33. axb4 Qd6

[d]4r1k1/3nrpp1/2pq2n1/3p2Np/1P1P3P/3QPP2/2N2K2/5R1R w - -

[Alayan]

Maybe other people would need better hardware because they can't do this, but if I had faster hardware I'd not play better, I'd just play the same moves that I do, 10 times faster. Would you watch a good movie at ten times the speed so it ends in 12 minutes instead of 120? No, so why would you do that with the analysis of chess positions if the point is the journey, not the destination, and receiving the moves I'm going to make from my future self so I can make them with 0 analysis would ruin all the fun?

Spoiler alert, there are opponents that could be beaten by going into more complex positions with more potential choices that you won't beat because you'll stick to positions with less potential choices. And if you played cc games from bad-but-not-lost positions, you'd get a bunch of losses too. Start position is too easy to defend.

Your claim that you'd play exactly the same moves just 10 times faster is flat out false, and even taking it as hyperbole, it would mean that your much-vaunted analysis method scales like trash.

[mmt]

1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 c6 4. Qb3 e6 5. Qxb7 Nd7 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. d4 Rb8 9. Qa6 Rb6 10. Qd3 Ng6 11. h3 Be6 12. Nf3 Bd6 13. h4 h5 14. b3 Nf6 15. Bg5 O-O 16. e3 Re8 17. Kf1 Bg4 18. Ne1 Bb4 19. Na4 Rb8 20. Nc2 Be7 21. f3 Be6 22. Nc5 Bc8 23. Kf2 Nd7 24. Ne6 Qa5 25. Bxe7 Rxe7 26. b4 Qb6 27. Ng5 Ba6 28. Qa3 Rbe8 29. Bf1 Bxf1 30. Raxf1 Qc7 31. Qd3 a5 32. a3 axb4 33. axb4 Qd6 34.Rfg1

[d]4r1k1/3nrpp1/2pq2n1/3p2Np/1P1P3P/3QPP2/2N2K2/6RR b - - 2 2

[SheikhYerbouti]

Those were self-play games that I produced for my game against Harvey, where Stockfish couldn't beat itself. But as it turns out for every single one of them there was a winning move for black, and I'm sure better hardware or higher depth would have found the winning moves. So it's the other way around, Stockfish would win as black given sufficient nodes.

At this point I'd rather attack Zullil's 1.g4 than Zenmastur's 1.g4, since the only chance to find a drawing line, if it exists, is believing that it does. Zenmastur being able to hold the game to move 80 with a sub-2.00 eval and proceeding to lose it would not impress me, I want to see a draw against the best attack I can produce and thus far mmt's defense is the strongest I've seen and see where it's leading (my move on next post so it doesn't get buried on this one.)

But yeah, part of my magic is NOT seeking for the OPTIMAL moves to play, which has been proven to not be attainable in reasonable time with my hardware, but seeking for the MOST EFFICIENT moves, those that would allow me to play the easiest moves to find in reasonable time, that don't need better hardware.

Maybe other people would need better hardware because they can't do this, but if I had faster hardware I'd not play better, I'd just play the same moves that I do, 10 times faster. Would you watch a good movie at ten times the speed so it ends in 12 minutes instead of 120? No, so why would you do that with the analysis of chess positions if the point is the journey, not the destination, and receiving the moves I'm going to make from my future self so I can make them with 0 analysis would ruin all the fun?

Right, I misread beginning of your post. I thought you meant Stockfish matched against itself couldn't win with black. Well in that case, a good further test would be Stockfish vs itself after g4. Good hardware would make the timescale minimal. I still think best optimal moves for white could hold a draw. Maybe white playing with -100 contempt?

[Ovyron]

Your claim that you'd play exactly the same moves just 10 times faster is flat out false

Nope. I can emulate that precisely by, say, analyzing a position for 10 minutes instead of 1. Then I get to see what a x10 times faster computer would show, wouldn't I? I'd just get that in 1 minute instead of 10, that's how it works.

And I've never found an use for the extra info, it's like I wasted those extra 9 minutes, so I better stick with 1.

I'm playing people without clocks like mmt, I could use x10 times the time I take to play without problems, and then we'd see how I'd play with faster hardware. Except we'd see nothing better.

, and even taking it as hyperbole, it would mean that your much-vaunted analysis method scales like trash.

I take as much time as I need. The problem is "self-refutation". There comes a point in analysis where you have found the best move (optimal, most efficient, or whatever), and then you should make it. More analysis is just going to muddy the waters, either by making second best "catch up" to the same score so you're no longer sure about what was best anymore, or by finding a very strong defense by the opponent that makes your mainline score a hit so you're not sure if it holds up. Then you switch your move, and perform worse.

I have performed better by analyzing less because of this! I discovered this by accident when I had so many games going on the ICCF+LSS+FICGS that I actually didn't have enough time to do what I do, so I had to settle for lower quality analysis, or so, I thought. But I won more games than with regular analysis!

What was happening was less self-refutation: In the past I'd have found an opponent's defense that refuted my line, so I'd have gone with something different instead. Now I didn't have time to refute my line, so I played it anyway, my opponent didn't find the refutation either, and I'd win!

This is how I got my ICCF IM norm with ease with a point to spare (I actually let an opponent escape with a draw in a position I was winning, but not because of my hardware, because of my apathy), and why I kept starting new games elsewhere while that was going. My method seems good enough to hold people on better hardware and beat people with worse analysis methods, and improving it leads to self-refutation and fewer wins, so I've maxed out what I can do.

[Ovyron]

Good hardware would make the timescale minimal. I still think best optimal moves for white could hold a draw.

But further inspection would reveal that black missed a winning line on that draw, so what would be the point?