< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Dec-09-17|| ||zanzibar: <<dannygjk:> btw how do I properly quote people? lol>|
There's no one-true convention. But generally it's best to put the person, then the quote (in quotes).
Highlighting with angle-brackets, i.e. < ...person: "quote"...> is nice for the eyes (emphasis), like <keypusher> does.
I like to put angle-brackets around the person's name too, see this post.
|Dec-09-17|| ||dannygjk: Thanks. ok time for a nap I spent all night, (and all evening), watching videos analysing the AZ vs SF games!|
|Dec-11-17|| ||Tal1949: I am sorry Google- but this game is just ridiculous. Stockfish 8 does not play any of the moves that you claim it does.
11. Kh1 12. a5 35. Nc4
These are all moves that a 3200 level engine would never play. In fact, 5 out of 28 moves in the middle game (17.8%) are not Stockfish 8 moves, regardless of the time control or lack of opening book.
Please do not tamper with the Strength configuration or Contempt- we know what you are doing.
|Dec-11-17|| ||The Kings Domain: Good game played in fittingly machine-like precision. Black's 8)... f6 is interesting and served it well.|
|Dec-11-17|| ||talwnbe4: 11. Kh1?! isn't Stockfish... ,
11. Qc3 or 11. Be3 seem better
although not a big difference in
Don't think Stockfish was designed for multicore, it's an opensource engine.
|Dec-11-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Ghe what about 8. Qe1?
Seriously... this move is interesting if one takes the blabla from the top GMs about this *match* into consideration.
Except Naka (and the ones who refused to react to this nonsense) the whole bunch seems to make a rather unsophisticated impression as it comes to the sense of reality.
|Dec-11-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: PS And yet, as if I come from the Planet of the Apes, I am the only one who comments on it.
Probably the rest of my fellow humans beings are too embarrassed to react on such imbecilities. The usual.|
|Dec-12-17|| ||talwnbe4: WorstPlayerEver, I don't think the best players ever even look at a chessboard.|
|Dec-12-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <talwnbe4>
Lol I was pretty high because of all the medication, when I wrote that.
Well, I'd rather seen the Berlin. Or the Najdorf, but I guess A0 would not take such lines seriously ;)
|Dec-12-17|| ||devere: <Tal1949: I am sorry Google- but this game is just ridiculous. Stockfish 8 does not play any of the moves that you claim it does.>|
Yes, it seems that this "match" is just a publicity stunt by Google to impress gullible people like me. But now even I have figured out the real game they are playing isn't chess.
|Dec-12-17|| ||john barleycorn: <devere: ...
this "match" is just a publicity stunt by Google ...>
I agree. When things look too good, the chandeliers are too awesome ... you are into a scam. Especially, when Kasparov's face shows up.
|Dec-13-17|| ||dannygjk: SF still manages it's time well at various time controls. By the way time management is a non-factor at fixed time/move controls.
The book-Even when Stockfish followed theory in these published games AZ outplayed SF after the opening.
EGTB-Stockfish had lost positions before the EGTB would be of any use.
Hash transposition size-Try it yourself give SF a big hash and see how long it takes SF to see that AZ's sacs were sound.
Based on what I have seen in the published games my theory why AZ outplayed SF is that AZ has vastly superior move ordering. This is supported by the fact that SF was doing 70,000,000 nps while AZ was doing only 80,000 nps. Even if SF has a huge transposition hash table that won't be enough to compensate for much inferior move ordering. Inferior move ordering results in too much time wasted on pointless variations. SF will miss crucial variations because of that.|
|Dec-13-17|| ||kjr63: Is ..Bc5 and ..Nd7 an opening novelty?|
|Dec-13-17|| ||dream31: This is absurd!! I could beat Alphazero - Stockfish is playing like at 2000 Elo level. 13. Ncxe5 is like a novice playing. Maybe Stockfish had a virus created by Google? - allegedly. I think alphazero is playing barely 2509 level.|
|Dec-13-17|| ||Penguincw: Video analysis of this game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WO....|
|Dec-14-17|| ||andrewjsacks: This game is a ridiculous joke.|
|Dec-14-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Freakshow|
|Dec-14-17|| ||keypusher: I wonder if Go players were as delusional as cg kibitzers seem to be.|
|Dec-14-17|| ||perfidious: <keypusher: I wonder if Go players were as delusional as cg kibitzers seem to be.>|
I resemble that remark!
|Dec-15-17|| ||dunkenchess: Wrong early sac|
|Dec-15-17|| ||Scarborough shoal: Computers will crush humans.|
|Dec-15-17|| ||Scarborough shoal: Stockfish is an i***t.|
|Dec-16-17|| ||drleper: <Tal1949: I am sorry Google- but this game is just ridiculous. Stockfish 8 does not play any of the moves that you claim it does. 11. Kh1 12. a5 35. Nc4
These are all moves that a 3200 level engine would never play. In fact, 5 out of 28 moves in the middle game (17.8%) are not Stockfish 8 moves, regardless of the time control or lack of opening book. Please do not tamper with the Strength configuration or Contempt- we know what you are doing.>|
I would guess that these discrepancies depend on the system producing the moves. I've managed to get Stockfish 8 on my system (Intel i7-5820K, running with 4GB hash and 6 threads) to produce 11.Kh1, 12.a5, and 35.Nc4 as the top choices at various times. That said, those moves did change given a bit more time.
Interestingly, on move 35 Stockfish 8 initially thinks that 35.Rc1 is good enough for a draw, but if you input that move it soon finds 35...c4! and after backing up, it seems that it really can't decide between 35.Rc1, 35.Ng6, or 35.Nc4 (probably because it's already lost). Most likely stronger hardware would more quickly skip over this illusion that 35.Rc1 provides a draw.
|Jan-10-18|| ||sankukay50: Rebel recommends 11...Bc1 after 12'35"
Kh1 has never seen
|Jan-29-18|| ||dannygjk: Yes it finds 35...c4 after you enter 35.Rc1 because it's one ply further ahead in the game.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·