chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Stockfish (Computer)
Stockfish 
 
Number of games in database: 156
Years covered: 2009 to 2017

Overall record: +34 -28 =90 (52.0%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 4 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Sicilian (12) 
    B40 B32 B99 B33 B53
 French Defense (5) 
    C02 C11 C14 C12
 English (5) 
    A10 A18
 Ruy Lopez (5) 
    C65 C84 C86 C70
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (11) 
    B40 B32 B48 B47 B99
 Queen's Indian (9) 
    E17 E16 E15 E12
 French Defense (9) 
    C11 C02 C14 C18 C07
 English (4) 
    A10 A18
 Nimzo Indian (4) 
    E32 E27 E21
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Stockfish vs Jonny, 2014 1-0
   Stockfish vs Rybka, 2013 1-0
   Stockfish vs Critter, 2014 1-0
   Komodo vs Stockfish, 2014 0-1
   Houdini vs Stockfish, 2013 0-1
   Houdini vs Stockfish, 2013 0-1
   Stockfish vs Rybka, 2013 1-0
   Komodo vs Stockfish, 2014 0-1
   Stockfish vs Komodo, 2014 1/2-1/2
   Stockfish vs Houdini, 2013 1-0

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Stockfish Nakamura Match (2014)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Engine Brilliancies by Zhbugnoimt
   scholes' favorite games by scholes
   nTCEC Computer Chess Tournament by shoshonte

GAMES ANNOTATED BY STOCKFISH: [what is this?]
   Battle of the Brains II, 2008
   Battle of the Brains 3, 2009
   Team White vs Team Black, 2013
   D Byrne vs Fischer, 1956
   Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999
   >> 361 GAMES ANNOTATED BY STOCKFISH

RECENT GAMES:
   🏆 AlphaZero - Stockfish
   Stockfish vs AlphaZero (Dec-04-17) 0-1
   Stockfish vs AlphaZero (Dec-04-17) 0-1
   AlphaZero vs Stockfish (Dec-04-17) 1-0
   AlphaZero vs Stockfish (Dec-04-17) 1-0
   AlphaZero vs Stockfish (Dec-04-17) 1-0

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Stockfish (Computer)
Search Google for Stockfish (Computer)


STOCKFISH (COMPUTER)
(born 2008) Norway

[what is this?]

Stockfish originated as a fork of Tord Romstad's Glaurung (Computer), improved by Marco Costalba, Romstad and Joona Kiiski. It is now developed by the Stockfish community, using Gary Linscott's Fishtest testing framework to test new code.

As of 2016, Stockfish is one of the two strongest chess engines in the world, with Komodo (Computer), and the strongest open-source engine. It won TCEC season 6 in 2014, defeating Komodo in the superfinal.

Stockfish runs on Linux, Windows or Mac OS X platforms, as well as mobile platforms such as the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. Various installations have supported set-ups such as 8 Gbytes for a hashtable with an 8-core processor under its UCI protocol.

Official website: http://www.stockfishchess.com

SmallFish app for iPad/iPhone with iOS 8.0 or later: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sma...

SmallFish for iOS 6: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sma...

Stockfish 2.0.1, operated by User: kutztown46, played in the CG.com Masters - Machines Invitational (2011) as Kutztown46 / Stockfish.

Last updated: 2017-07-16 00:42:57

 page 1 of 7; games 1-25 of 156  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Stockfish vs Rybka 0-17820093rd WCRCCD14 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Exchange Variation
2. Stockfish vs Crafty  1-0742013nTCEC - Stage 1A10 English
3. Stockfish vs Rybka  1-0662013nTCEC - Stage 1B53 Sicilian
4. Stockfish vs Critter  ½-½672013nTCEC - Stage 2aA10 English
5. Critter vs Stockfish ½-½562013nTCEC - Stage 2aA10 English
6. Stockfish vs Rybka  0-1532013nTCEC - Stage 3B33 Sicilian
7. Stockfish vs Chiron  1-0522013nTCEC - Stage 3C12 French, McCutcheon
8. HIARCS vs Stockfish 0-1542013nTCEC - Stage 3A52 Budapest Gambit
9. Stockfish vs Rybka 1-0422013nTCEC - Stage 4B03 Alekhine's Defense
10. Houdini vs Stockfish  0-1872013nTCEC - Stage 4C18 French, Winawer
11. Rybka vs Stockfish  ½-½422013nTCEC - Stage 4B03 Alekhine's Defense
12. Stockfish vs Houdini  0-1762013nTCEC - Stage 4 - Season 1C70 Ruy Lopez
13. Stockfish vs Houdini  ½-½612013nTCEC - Superfinal - SeasonD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
14. Houdini vs Stockfish  ½-½412013nTCEC - Superfinal - SeasonD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
15. Stockfish vs Houdini ½-½872013nTCEC - Superfinal - SeasonE12 Queen's Indian
16. Houdini vs Stockfish ½-½692013nTCEC - Superfinal - SeasonE15 Queen's Indian
17. Stockfish vs Houdini  ½-½562013nTCEC - Superfinal - Season 1D99 Grunfeld Defense, Smyslov
18. Houdini vs Stockfish 1-0532013nTCEC - Superfinal - SeasonD98 Grunfeld, Russian
19. Houdini vs Stockfish  1-0672013nTCEC - Superfinal - SeasonE04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3
20. Stockfish vs Houdini ½-½1092013nTCEC - Superfinal - Season 1B04 Alekhine's Defense, Modern
21. Houdini vs Stockfish  ½-½602013nTCEC - Superfinal - Season 1B04 Alekhine's Defense, Modern
22. Stockfish vs Houdini  ½-½602013nTCEC - Superfinal - SeasonE04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3
23. Stockfish vs Houdini  ½-½472013nTCEC - Superfinal - SeasonA10 English
24. Houdini vs Stockfish 1-0792013nTCEC - Superfinal - SeasonA10 English
25. Stockfish vs Houdini ½-½592013nTCEC - Superfinal - SeasonC14 French, Classical
 page 1 of 7; games 1-25 of 156  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Stockfish wins | Stockfish loses  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: <Bluegrey>

I was not meaning you, btw, but it seems many sources have spread the news without checking its sources. That's what I meant by parrots.

Brb ;)

Dec-07-17  frogbert: <Four hours to reach Stockfish level>

<alexmagnus> But did it really do that, when the creators of AlphaZero put arbitrary limitations on their version of Stockfish?

Consider:

"Elo ratings were computed from evaluation
games between different players when given <one second per move>. a) Performance of AlphaZero in chess, compared to 2016 TCEC world-champion program Stockfish."

"Figure 1 shows the performance of AlphaZero during self-play reinforcement learning, as a function of training steps, on an Elo scale (10). In chess, AlphaZero outperformed Stockfish after just 4 hours (300k steps);"

I.e. that was based on giving Stockfish 1 second per move - which means very shallow search depths for a brute-force depth-first engine. Similarly:

"We evaluated the fully trained instances of AlphaZero against Stockfish, Elmo and the previous version of AlphaGo Zero (trained for 3 days) in chess, shogi and Go respectively, playing 100 game matches at tournament time controls of one minute per move."

Again, this means putting an arbitrary restraint on Stockfish, not allowing it to do its own time management, i.e. control its use of selective depth searches based on the complexity of the position.

If Stockfish would've been given 40 minutes for 40 moves, followed by 20 minutes for 20 moves (and so on, adding new 20 move time controls until the end of the game), my belief is that Stockfish would perform better than it did in this 100 game match.

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: So the French, Sicilian, Caro-Kann and Spanish are all now defunct?

I'm not too surprised, apart from the inclusion of the Ruy Lopez/ Spanish on the list. I thought the Berlin wall was still a draw. If AlphaZero is right, it isn't, which means that the Petroff is the best drawing line after 1.e4 e5.

Of course I will continue to play the Sicilian and French (and Caro-Kann, Pirc, Modern, Owen, Scandinavian, etc) against humans. Never mind the ultimate correctness: anything that poses problems is good.

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-f...

A vs S game 5 after move 20:


click for larger view

Now our genius produces 21. Bg5

No further info but in the tiny paragraphs one could read that this game continued: 21... f5 22. Qf4 Nc5

The latter is an obvious blunder which S8 not even considers.

It plays 21. Bg5 f5 22. Qf4 hxg5

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  SirRuthless: So AlphaGo beat a redefined and much weakened stockfish and we are supposed to conclude what? Without the large book and tablebases these engines are functionally much weaker against humans, let alone an AI like AlphaGo so why did they place arbitrary restrictions on Stockfish? I don't think this study shows much related to the stated conclusions.
Dec-07-17  frogbert: < So the French, Sicilian, Caro-Kann and Spanish are all now defunct>

Yep! It took a self-learning neural network to debunk Kasparov's Najdorf. Or wait - did it? ;)

Seriously, we can't tell from the diagrams in the paper why AlphaZero stopped playing certain openings during learning; was it based on white's or black's results in the given opening? Or neither? :)

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: PS so even in this completely ridiculous position (take note: usually reached by a oh so brilliant pawn sac - or two) Alpha does not reach beta.

The trouble with fraudulous people is that they usually tend to overdo it. Gotta love that word. Usually :)

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <<frogbert - quoting <Dom> to start>

< So the French, Sicilian, Caro-Kann and Spanish are all now defunct> ...
Seriously, we can't tell from the diagrams in the paper why AlphaZero stopped playing certain openings during learning; was it based on white's or black's results in the given opening? Or neither? :)>

Don't forget, like I did, to mention the KID being busted too, pretty much right out of the starting gate (although we already knew that!).

But yes, why are some openings intensely played and then fall "out of fashion" during training?

Here's a hypothetical - suppose one opening always scored draws, and another scored 50% wins and 50% draws.

Would both be treated the same during training?

.

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: Oh yeah living in the world of telecommunication it probably takes a pigeon a year to spread the rest of the 90 games. As has been claimed in public for a while.

Or -option2: now things get extremely boring- there are no 90 other games

Or -option3- Bob's my mother.

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: (BTW- I share many/most/all(?) of <frogbert>'s concerns - e.g. the fact that SF was tuned with opening book/endgame tb enabled)
Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: <frogbert> The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind. Well, OK, it's not in the wind, but a quick search or looking at London Classic...

No French, No King's Gambit, No Bird, No Petrov, No Dutch, No Scotch.

Of Carlsen's game in database, 8 games have 1...e6 Nakamura have 44

So, does an opening fall out of favour? Or is it top GMs think it's not optimal?

It doesn't mean it's not playable to lower level, it's (almost) like no NFL team uses wishbone formation, but some colleges still do.

Dec-07-17  Absentee: <Domdaniel: So the French, Sicilian, Caro-Kann and Spanish are all now defunct?

I'm not too surprised, apart from the inclusion of the Ruy Lopez/ Spanish on the list. I thought the Berlin wall was still a draw. If AlphaZero is right, it isn't, which means that the Petroff is the best drawing line after 1.e4 e5.>

It hasn't solved chess, only beaten another engine playing certain openings under very specific conditions. For the question of whether those openings are a win, a draw or a loss, we're every bit as clueless as before.

Restricting the time controls to 1 minute/move might be a very limiting factor for Stockfish, or any traditional engine. AlphaZero seems to use its own self-played games more or less the way we use pattern recognition, although the paper doesn't quite explain how this knowledge is stored and accessed (does it have perfect recall of every game? does it produce its own variables and adjust the evaluation function at specific moments? etc). With a relatively low number of positions analyzed per second, I would expect this approach to hit a ceiling sooner, and longer time controls to favor brute-force calculation. I also might be entirely wrong.

Dec-07-17  frogbert: <The latter is an obvious blunder which S8 not even considers.

It plays 21. Bg5 f5 22. Qf4 hxg5>

And what does S8 do for black after 23. Nxg5, <WorstPlayerEver>?

23... Qxh5 loses to 24. g4!
23... Qg8 loses to 24. h6!

Hence, we're left with the line 23... Qh6 24. Re8 Qf6 25. Rae1 Kg8 26. Rxf8+ Qxf8 27. Qd4! and white is again winning.

Got any improvements for black here?

Dec-07-17  frogbert: (For some reason Stockfish has an issue with finding 24. g4! too - I don't know why.)

In short, it certainly doesn't look like 22... Nc5 was a blunder - rather black's best option in the position. But Stockfish realized too late that it was in trouble after Bg5! - possibly due to the enforced time restriction of exactly 1 minute per move.

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: I have only (quickly) played game 1 from the PDF file, so a quick glance at FEN of game 5 - move 20, I see similarity to game 1:

1. White have no center pawn(s)
2. (Somehow) black got its pieces in the A8 corner(?!!?)

Don't think any human player would get him/herself into that kind of position...

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: 21. Bg5 f5 22. Qf4 hxg5 23. Nxg5 Qxh5 24. g4 and Black is completely lost. Again. And I see no improvement.

But it proves my point; S8 does not play 21... Nc5 afaik

And a lot of other moves. I assume that AlphaZero actually played these moves and it all looks very interesting and brilliant indeed. I am the last to deny. There's really something interesting going on.

However, I question the presentation of the facts. Because it's possible to filter out these variations and apply a different approach to them while programming. A testcase. So to speak.

Besides, if I were so brilliant, I'd be the first to come up with all info=100 games and not 10. Why hesitate?

So I guess we are repeating moves ;)

Dec-07-17  frogbert: In game 9, AlphaZero plays a rather brilliant positional piece sacrifice, with 30. Bxg6!! It takes Stockfish several moves after the sac to realize that it has become (much) worse - even a piece up.

There's a similar theme in game 7 where black's bishop ends up being utterly useless on b7 and a8, making black practically play a piece down in the deciding moments of the game.

Dec-07-17  frogbert: <But it proves my point>

It proves nothing of the sort: There are various builds of S8 around, your cache-state may have an impact, there are lots of tweakable engine parameters, and its performance (and choices) also depends on the hardware configuration.

By playing around, I've seen that Stockfish seems to struggle with finding some of the refutations of its own moves - while AlphaZero did. Only after I help Stockfish with the right idea, does it change its opinion.

My only "beef" with the comparison in the article, is that they imposed restrictions on Stockfish that are particularly harmful for depth-first approaches; in order to do selective depth-first well, the program needs to be able to manage its own time (within normal time controls, of course).

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: <frogbert>

Sure enough S8 has trouble to find this moves: it goes beyond their evaluation. Which is traditionally still too based on materialistic grounds. It doesn't recognize the pattern of the position. Which comes down to King safety.

My objection stands corrected though, I think. The Black S8 positions are often more than just passive. Withdrawn is an appropriate term, I suppose.

The e5 vs c6/e6 ingredient/locked Black LSB/king side attack, White Queen has hands free/open d-file for White.

All managed through nice pawn sacs.

It's almost like sac sac mate ;)

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: I have a strong feeling that the whole thing was manufactured in one way or the other. Has Kasparov been involved?
Dec-07-17  frogbert: <Hence, we're left with the line 23... Qh6 24. Re8 Qf6 25. Rae1 Kg8 26. Rxf8+ Qxf8 27. Qd4! and white is again winning.>

And here, my Stockfish doesn't find the important move 27. Qd4 within one minute - and Qd4 actually works due to a second piece sacrifice (Bd5+). :)

I hope everyone realizes that AlphaZero also does a tree search during play - MCTS or Monte Carlo Tree Search simulations - which is more costly for each node in the tree; hence, the huge difference in number of positions examined per second between AZ and S.

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Marmot PFL: Komodo seemed listless and out of form in some games against Houdini too. Even computers have bad days I suppose, and the programmers go through the opponents games, looking for weaknesses to exploit.
Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: <frogbert>

You are right. I proved very little today.

But hey, except from rather cramped opening ideas, I always stated there's -far- more to chess than everyone thought. My infectuous optimism may well have contributed to this h.. I mean revolutionary developments. Who knows.

Or maybe I am a little on the narcissistic side?

Dec-07-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <Worst> That's good. It's only when you reach the *very* narcissistic point, where optimism is quashed, that things get problematic.
Dec-08-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: < WannaBe: I have only (quickly) played game 1 from the PDF file, so a quick glance at FEN of game 5 - move 20, I see similarity to game 1: 1. White have no center pawn(s)
2. (Somehow) black got its pieces in the A8 corner(?!!?)

Don't think any human player would get him/herself into that kind of position...>

Kasparov vs Marjanovic, 1980

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 11)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC