Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stockfish 14

stockfishchess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 207 posts

Re: Stockfish 14

#81

Post by mlang23 »

SamBam wrote: post #52
tus89 wrote: post #25

Is it just me or is battle-of-the-AI chess more exciting than humans?

Minor thought, but one of the things I love about high level AI chess, like Stockfish vs AlphaZero, is seeing how their ratings of positions change over the course of the game. I had realized a while ago that, as a human, the computer will give your position a score, and then you make a move, and your score can pretty much only stay the same (if you make a "perfect" move) or go down. Much of the time, it goes down. T…

The "technical" term for what you describe is blundering. The winner amongst two humans playing each other is mostly defined by who blunders first. Some of these are sometimes so obvious that we have a take-back rule amongst friends for obvious giveaways. Mind you, its not "can I take this move back", its "you want to make another move, this one is too stupid"

Re: Stockfish 14

#84

Post by stouset »

awb wrote: post #78
elias94 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but who uses chess.com anymore?

They’re a great site for chess and chess variants. And their live commentary of chess events is actually exceptional.

I can't comment as to their commentary, but lichess has them soundly beat in pretty much every other way.

Re: Stockfish 14

#85

Post by nl »

mlang23 wrote: post #81
SamBam wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor thought, but one of the things I love about high level AI chess, like Stockfish vs AlphaZero, is seeing how their ratings of positions change over the course of the game. I had realized a while ago that, as a human, the computer will give your position a score, and then you make a move, and your score can pretty much only stay the same (if you make a "perfect" move) or go down. Much of the time, it goes down. T…

The "technical" term for what you describe is blundering. The winner amongst two humans playing each other is mostly defined by who blunders first. Some of these are sometimes so obvious that we have a take-back rule amongst friends for obvious giveaways. Mind you, its not "can I take this move back", its "you want to make another move, this one is too stupid"

It's not really.

What they are describing is that feeling you get when you suddenly realize you are losing even though you are even in pieces, because you suddenly see your opposition has superior positioning and board control

It's not a blunder, because there wasn't one particular move where the game slipped away.

At high levels, blunders are rare.

Re: Stockfish 14

#86

Post by tetha »

keerthiko wrote: post #71
SamBam wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor thought, but one of the things I love about high level AI chess, like Stockfish vs AlphaZero, is seeing how their ratings of positions change over the course of the game. I had realized a while ago that, as a human, the computer will give your position a score, and then you make a move, and your score can pretty much only stay the same (if you make a "perfect" move) or go down. Much of the time, it goes down. T…

> Two humans playing each other, it's just a question: who's score goes down less each time they make a move? It became a little sad. It seemed like either you can make the right move, or you make a sub-optimal move, and the winner is simply the one who makes the fewer sub-optimal moves. What you describe is when a perfect chess-playing computer (approx AlphaZero) observes two humans playing. What humans observe watc…

This depends on the level of the player observing the game, compared to the players level. It's pretty common to have a strong player at a masters level pointing out subtle positional or tactical mistakes, but the enemy is not skilled enough to exploit those - so the mistakes do not matter at that level.

This is also something to keep in mind to not get discouraged: Just because every move is terrible to a 3500+ chess engine at some level, it does not mean these concerns always apply to you at half that rating.

Re: Stockfish 14

#87

Post by dmingod666 »

stouset wrote: post #84
awb wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re a great site for chess and chess variants. And their live commentary of chess events is actually exceptional.

I can't comment as to their commentary, but lichess has them soundly beat in pretty much every other way.

Seriously, I am a paying customer of chess.com -- I for the life of me could not get a new user signed up to play chess with. We wanted to play and selected the wrong level by mistake ( beginner ) -- it won't allow you to play even if you are friends on the site. Horrible user experience. You want to play variants on your phone, can't. go to the website.. Lichess is just awesome! Play anyone you want, variants on the app. Love it.

Re: Stockfish 14

#88

Post by mlang23 »

nl wrote: post #85
mlang23 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "technical" term for what you describe is blundering. The winner amongst two humans playing each other is mostly defined by who blunders first. Some of these are sometimes so obvious that we have a take-back rule amongst friends for obvious giveaways. Mind you, its not "can I take this move back", its "you want to make another move, this one is too stupid"

It's not really. What they are describing is that feeling you get when you suddenly realize you are losing even though you are even in pieces, because you suddenly see your opposition has superior positioning and board control It's not a blunder, because there wasn't one particular move where the game slipped away. At high levels, blunders are rare.

If the evaluation of a position were only about the raw material count, the game would be rather dull.

Re: Stockfish 14

#90

Post by thejosh »

elias94 wrote: post #49
jeremyjh wrote: post #33

And chess.com still uses version 8...

True, but who uses chess.com anymore?

They pay streamers to make it look big, and then their viewers have to use chess.com if they want to play them.

I have fallen in love with chess again over the past few months, and lichess is an absolutely amazing experience. Their mobile clients (iOS/Android) are both fantastic and BS free.

Post reply on HN