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

Stockfish 19

stockfishchess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: Stockfish 19

#141

Post by canucker2016 »

tsoj wrote: post #99
alex1138 wrote: post #24

People perhaps won't remember the long history of computer chess at least how it played out in the 90s There was a succession of interesting engines (I think The King used to win a number of computer tournaments, this is the one Chessmaster used, that wonderful audio-visual program, like Encarta but chess related) and then the big three of Fritz (match against Kramnik), Junior (match against Kasparov) and Shredder. A…

The next closest is probably Torch currently

from the TCEC Season 29 Premier Division tournament, Stockfish was first, Reckless v0.9.0 was second, LCZero 0.33 was third, PlentyChess (won tiebreaker) tied with Torch for fourth.

see https://tcec-chess.com/#div=p&game=1&season=29

click on the Standings tab to see the results.

Re: Stockfish 19

#142

Post by vouaobrasil »

zkmon wrote: post #70

Game engines, AI, robots and machines in general are establising a "goal horizon" for humans. This is unnecessary and counter productive way of using tools. Tools are supposed to work for us, not set goals or direction for us.

But as technology progresses and becomes more advanced, it does seem to set goals in all directions in that seems inevitable if we continue to 'collaborate' with modern technology. I mean, we no longer develop tools to help us out really, if you think about it. We develop tools to get ahead of other tools, to be faster than them, to protect ourselves from still other tools.

I'd argue that as we condition ourselves into a state of constant development, we shouldn't even call these things "tools" anymore, but pieces of an organism that spurn us to upgrade and complete it at every step.

Tools working for us only applies to local, simple tools that one person or a small communiity can basically understand and make, like a hammer. That's a tool. I wouldn't call a computer a tool any more just like I wouldn't say that our brain is merely a tool. It's more: it's an extension of us and even an integral part of us that modifies our very instincts and desires itself.

Re: Stockfish 19

#143

Post by stillpointlab »

segmondy wrote: post #72
thomasmg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me (having written my own tiny 400 line chess engine, that now I'm not able to beat - sure I'm not a good player, but still), the reason to have Stockfish is not really to play against it, and then inevitably lose, but to use it to show which moves are best. I assume that's how most (hobby and professional) chess players use Stockfish nowadays.

What does it matter if you can see which moves are best if you can't understand it?

For some reason this question reminds me of all of the drama about Navier-Stokes from the last few days. Tangential to the ethical questions are tons of examples where in history when word gets out about a solution to a problem, not even the solution itself just rumors that there is a solution, suddenly competing solutions appear.

So maybe it matters like that? Just knowing that an oracle like stockfish is saying "this is the best move" may trigger pathways in your brain that promote understanding?

Re: Stockfish 19

#144

Post by nilslindemann »

strenholme wrote: post #81

Interesting bug or regression. Let’s take the very famous game Kasparov - Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1999 and look at the position just after Topalov accepts Kasparov’s Rook Sacrifice: https://samboy.github.io/blog/Kasparov.html#RookSacAccepted - https://lichess.org/lwiPq9wB#48 - White to move FEN: b2r3r/k4p1p/p2q1np1/Np1P4/3p1Q2/P4PPB/1PP4P/1K2R3 w - - 0 25 Run the above position in Stockfish 18 with a depth of 25: [1] I…

However, Stockfish 19 has gotten better at understanding fortresses:

https://lichess.org/analysis/1b3r2/8/4P3/2pP2k1/3nB2p/3P3P/5... (now finds 1...Rxf2 = immediately, the evaluation is closer to 0.0)

https://lichess.org/analysis/8/kp2q3/1Np5/pPPp1b2/P2Pp1p1/4P... (finds 1.Nc8+ = quicker (let it ponder four lines), the evaluation is closer to 0.0)

https://lichess.org/analysis/rk6/1p1b4/pBp5/PPPp4/3Pp3/4Pp1p... (The evaluation is closer to 0.0, though still far away)

https://lichess.org/analysis/7k/4p3/5p2/1p1p1p2/1PpP1PpB/1pP... (Evaluation is closer to 0.0)

Re: Stockfish 19

#145

Post by IncreasePosts »

segmondy wrote: post #72
thomasmg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me (having written my own tiny 400 line chess engine, that now I'm not able to beat - sure I'm not a good player, but still), the reason to have Stockfish is not really to play against it, and then inevitably lose, but to use it to show which moves are best. I assume that's how most (hobby and professional) chess players use Stockfish nowadays.

What does it matter if you can see which moves are best if you can't understand it?

Because then you explore the line and try to learn what is so good about the move

Re: Stockfish 19

#146

Post by globular-toast »

jan_m_savage wrote: post #42

I am a fairly good player but after playing 22000 games, I came to the conclusion that ideas and strategies from chess are context-dependent and don't much transfer to real life. I'd rather spend all that time reading up on game theory and play some fun video games, like Red Dead Redemption.

Why would you play 22000 games if you didn't enjoy it? Are you saying you went through all of that because you thought it would be good for you?

Re: Stockfish 19

#147

Post by reddit_clone »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #108
bee_rider wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like an interesting alternative line of research. Design the a chess engine where the goal is to beat the best human in the minimum number of turns, while still offering ~no chance of human victory.

The Leela odds bots are working on a similar problem: beat humans starting down material. It's roughly grand master level starting down a rook, and for fast time control even starting down a queen

Unfortunately Chess (unlike Go) doesn't have a good handicap system. When playing without a piece (or two) it is not chess anymore OR it doesn't really matter.. During how many games does Queen's rook come into play during early middle game?

Go, on the other hand has a nice handicap system (which doesn't change the nature of the game too much). One can have a fighting chance against a much stronger player with enough handicap (Upto 9 stones). In Chess terms, an IM can have a _decent_ game against a GM. Probably lose. But the GM has to work for it.

Re: Stockfish 19

#148

Post by mikepurvis »

matsemann wrote: post #82
segmondy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it matter if you can see which moves are best if you can't understand it?

You just try it yourself and go down the different lines. "Okay, Stockfish suggests this, but I wanted to do that, let's try my idea, oh, I didn't think of that response to my move". Etc., play along some lines, think about them. Sometimes it's obvious, other times it just sets up something far in the future you must be a grandmaster to see the subtlety of.

The Square One Chess channel on youtube turns this kind of exploration/commentary into quite digestible content, though the thumbnails are, like everything else these days, a little clickbaity.

It's been fun viewing for me and my chess-interested 9-year-old.

Re: Stockfish 19

#149

Post by hyperbovine »

nevi-me wrote: post #18

To show you how strong Stockfish 19 is compared to 18, I used to lose 100% against 18, and I now lose 100% against 19, probably faster. Time to fire up En Croissant and see :)

Magnus cannot even beat his phone. We're long past the point of humans being able to compete with the `fish, any version, any platform.

Re: Stockfish 19

#150

Post by tguedes »

chaps wrote: post #121
bluecalm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think chess teaches a lot more. It teaches decision making and resource management. It's very important to consider your options and decide how much time you spend analyzing them. It teaches you things like elimination process (if you have 3 options, one complicated one and 2 simple ones then start analyzing simple ones because if they are bad you just saved a lot of time by not analyzing 3rd one). It also teaches…

You (and others) should check out real time strategy games if your hope is to learn much of what you're sharing here!

RTS requires other computer-type skills that are pretty useless. APM (micro and macro management), changing screen focus quickly, etc.

Chess is a great game for removing all those external factors. It's just thinking

Post reply on HN