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

201–207 of 207 posts

Re: Stockfish 14

#201

Post by zsmi »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #119
vfc1 wrote: 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…

It's odd that it would be 1 out of 6 or 7, because when high elo streamers like Hikaru or Chessbrah are doing speed runs, they very often go on a 100 win streak, which sounds exceedingly unlikely if the odds of facing an engine user would be 1 out of 6/7. An engine user would definitely beat them, unless they were using it sparingly of course, which can be, but I don't think it would be that obvious for you in this c…

Maybe it's not an engine but a GM on a 'speedrun'. I am pretty sure I couldn't tell the difference. :)

Re: Stockfish 14

#202

Post by zsmi »

jperras wrote: post #185
deeviant wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 This statement seems a bit funny because in order to have a good idea that they cheated, you would have also had to been analyzing the game with the chess engine. Regardless, unless you truly an amazingly player, nearly any chess engine made in th…

> This statement seems a bit funny because in order to have a good idea that they cheated, you would have also had to been analyzing the game with the chess engine. You analyze the game after it is played. When your opponent managed to have a 99.9% accuracy in a 1500+ ELO blitz/rapid game, it's highly unlikely that they managed to do that without some computer assistance.

You have to be a bit careful there.

I'm 1500+ ELO, play blitz/raipd, and get 100% from time to time.

It's usually because I played some book moves and then my opponent fell into an opening trap that I knew and they didn't [1] and I knew exactly how to play for the win to checkmate, because I've done it before many times and remember the post game analysis from them. I didn't come up with the moves on the spot.

[1] I get tons of wins with this one, especially since Queen's Gambit came out on Netflix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Gambit_Declined,_Ele...

Re: Stockfish 14

#203

Post by poutrathor »

abnry wrote: post #38
tus89 wrote: post #25

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

At the highest level, chess becomes an endurance sport. Magnus is so great because he can squeeze water from a stone. That is definitely admirable, but somewhat deflating compared to idea of the one brilliant move or insane positional play. Give a man bionic legs and it is no longer about how fast he can run but rather what new places he can go.

or... how far ? how long the batteries stay on ?

Re: Stockfish 14

#204

Post by edgyquant »

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.

Incorrect. Chess.com has a superior lessons system (it isn’t just text and a predefined board) and it has a superior computer to play against. In Lichess you have to use one of 7 levels in chess.com you have a sliding scale from 250-3200 and they have a lot more tools to analyze the game both during (when playing bots) or after. I use both but I swear that the comments I see dissing chess.com seem to be from people who are hardly familiar with it.

Re: Stockfish 14

#205

Post by edgyquant »

matsemann wrote: post #101
dmingod666 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I basically only play Lichess now (>3k games last few years), but used chess.com once in a while still to play with friends having an account there. Never had the problem you describe, sounds like PEBCAK. The constant chess.com hating here and on reddit is kinda off-putting, though.

It is. I also use both platforms and you can’t even bring up preferring chess.com here or on Reddit’s chess subs without being downvoted to oblivion and dogpilled. It’s super cult like similar to the way Musk fanboys come out in droves if you even suggest he isn’t some great man of history.

Re: Stockfish 14

#206

Post by vikingerik »

SamBam wrote: post #195
vikingerik wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 posit…

You're right, of course. What we're really talking about is the fallibility of estimations (and arbitraging between them) - you can't raise your score as projected by an omniscient computing power, but you can as estimated by real engines limited by their fallibility (and AlphaZero is less fallible.)

Mostly I'm pointing out that these estimations represent the best guess of an ultimately limited engine. People tend to treat those engine evaluations as actual numbers, like scores in a sport like baseball or some such, but they're not.

Re: Stockfish 14

#207

Post by juanefren »

sobellian wrote: post #182
vc9999 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed runs are 3min game, or even less. It's much hard to cheat in 3minutes games. The chess engine takes somes time to think about the next move

Chess engines destroy humans at speed chess. The time use creeps in if you're using a low-tech method of cheating (i.e. manually punching moves into your engine and the website).

AFAIK cheaters still manually input moves into engine, so cheating on 3min blitz against a super GM won't so be easy.
Post reply on HN