Live data from Hacker News

Stockfish 14

stockfishchess.org

191–200 of 207 posts

Re: Stockfish 14

#191
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like bullet chess is the only answer

I don't want to advertise cheating or give any info about cheating, but a "good" cheater can also cheat in bullet and may be even go more undetected if they were to mix moves well. Note: I have not cheated myself, but I can definitely see a way it can be done. I'm not sure if it would be good of me to describe the process of course... Just think what input you can have and what output you can get if you were to do th…

My ideas based on what you've said now are simply don't play ranked matches online, just develop your skills against humans and engines.

For real ranked matches, participants must have 360 webcams and so on showing they aren't cheating

Re: Stockfish 14

#192
post #3

That’s amazing. NNUE has been a boon for stockfish as it enabled it to find complicated ideas even on low depths, which are often more interesting than simple tactical perfection. Really excited to see stockfish 14.

What's the qualitative difference? Must be more interesting than a few elo points..

So stockfish has long been superhuman strength, but there are kind of two separate reasons for it

1. Tactics - in middle game there are a lot of possible variations and humans are bad at looking at all the possibilities so they blunder some tactic (eg some move order combination of under 10 moves that leads to a mating attack or significant material advantage). This alone is close to enough to be superhuman.

2. Long term advantage building — a move order that has no clear tactical advantage but puts the player into a better position many moves into the future. This is something that old fashion chess engines used to need very high depth but with nnue stockfish started selecting these kind of move orders even at low depths.

Variations of type 2 are more interesting to people because this is something we can try to learn from and infer general rules (eg instigating with flank pawns without immediate conversion of the attack became more common after alphazero used this in many games to get long term advantage).

At the same time most people analyze their games in browser running on their laptop/mobile device (since most games happen on chess.com or lichess.org) so really they only get low depth stockfish variations.

Without strong ability in (2) it can be hard to interpret SF generated variations since it is still superhuman (eg it will beat a human from a given position) but it sometimes makes moves that are probably suboptimal (because there are no immediate tactics available). But you can’t really tell if a variation is because sf doesn’t know what to do or because there is some hidden tactic/etc. The normal “solution” is if you suspect the position is pivotal to just calculate to very high depth. But that takes time and not something an average player will do.

Re: Stockfish 14

#193
post #158
post #107

I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user (I know because I report them, and they get banned). It's great to have a better engine, but I feel that would benefit the most the online chess community is not a better engine, but an open source cheat detection system, if that's even possible. I…

I've built a cheat detection system for chess few years ago. Our client paid for creating a chess portal to play chess for money (not an idea I'd put my money into - and it's been dead after few months). Anticheat engine has worked like that: - simulate a game using stockfish - for each move (except few moves at the beginning) compare the move made by player with the list suggested by engine - if the move chosen by p…

A small problem with using Stockfish is that cheaters may use other programs in order to not play like a top engine. For example, Stockfish would laugh at some old versions of Houdini, but Houdini still outplays any human easily.

Re: Stockfish 14

#194
post #158
post #107

I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user (I know because I report them, and they get banned). It's great to have a better engine, but I feel that would benefit the most the online chess community is not a better engine, but an open source cheat detection system, if that's even possible. I…

I've built a cheat detection system for chess few years ago. Our client paid for creating a chess portal to play chess for money (not an idea I'd put my money into - and it's been dead after few months). Anticheat engine has worked like that: - simulate a game using stockfish - for each move (except few moves at the beginning) compare the move made by player with the list suggested by engine - if the move chosen by p…

I mean, such a system already exists when players do analysis of their matches. The thing that makes a move identifiable as a blunder is that a chess engine evaluating the board before and after the move.

It's also worth keeping in mind that you will sometimes see players match the best engine move 95% of the time or more at the 800-1000 elo's and they're not cheating, it's just their opponent is blundering and the next move is obvious.

So specifically, you have to find when players matched up with engine moves, where the engine decided on an optimal move by looking far into the future.

Re: Stockfish 14

#195
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…

In a game of perfect information and no randomness, there are ultimately only two kinds of moves: those that preserve your current best forcible outcome (win or draw in chess*), and those that blunder that into a worse result given continued perfect play by the opponent. Everything else like a positional score or centipawns or even classic material points is an abstraction, that we use to summarize because we don't h…

> And it's impossible to raise your estimated score,

No, what I was saying is that it's absolutely possible to raise your estimated score, because your estimated score is only an estimation of who has the best position.

If AlphaZero is better than Stockfish, then by definition it will make moves that sometimes raise its estimated score, because Stockfish is only as good as its ability to estimate the score of a position better. So Stockfish must occasionally underestimate a position, and then later (after another move or two) is forced to reevaluate (because while it's worse, it's not stupid).

AlphaZero wins because, and precisely because, it believes some positions are more favorable than Stockfish does. You can almost see it as an arbitrage between the two estimations. That's what I was finding cool, and the point of my post.

Re: Stockfish 14

#196
post #107

I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user (I know because I report them, and they get banned). It's great to have a better engine, but I feel that would benefit the most the online chess community is not a better engine, but an open source cheat detection system, if that's even possible. I…

Why do people bother using an engine? Is there money on the line? It just seems pointless to cheat at a hobby.

Re: Stockfish 14

#199
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but who uses chess.com anymore?

Ridiculous comment. Chess.com is brilliant, and I use it as well as the less popular (but also brilliant) Lichess. Lichess is "cooler" because it's non-profit but honestly, comments like that are reminiscent of the childish anti-Microsoft barbs from Linux ideologues that have thankfully declined in recent years.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN