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

151–160 of 165 posts

Re: Stockfish 19

#151

Post by azakai »

mikepurvis wrote: post #148
matsemann wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ChessNetwork on YouTube also does a great job with this: analysis of interesting games, using Stockfish as a tool along the way.

Re: Stockfish 19

#152

Post by strenholme »

nilslindemann wrote: post #144
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 e…

Here is what I see typing this is Stockfish 18 and Stockfish 19:

  position fen 1b3r2/8/4P3/2pP2k1/3nB2p/3P3P/5PP1/5KRR b - - 0 1
  d
  go depth 35
In Stockfish 18: Black is 3.9 pawns ahead, and it wants to play Bg3

In Stockfish 19: Black is 1.2 pawns ahead, and it wants to play Rxf2!

So, yes, here Stockfish 18 can’t find Rxf2!, but Stockfish 19 does starting at depth 13.

Re: Stockfish 19

#153

Post by Oreb »

haunter wrote: post #6

The GUI page is a bit out of date imo, or I'm not sure how does the selection work because there are countles GUI options nowadays. Anyways some of the best options are not even mentioned like Nocheto https://nocheto.sallyx.org/ (this my favorite) ChessMD https://chessmd.org/ PyChess https://pychess.github.io/about/

Shameless self promotion:

If you’re a Mac user and want something with native look and feel, there is also The Marvelous Brass Chessplaying Automaton (TestFlight beta):

https://testflight.apple.com/join/mqfhpmHY

There are also iOS and watchOS versions, but those can’t run 3rd party engines like Stockfish.

Re: Stockfish 19

#154

Post by nilslindemann »

kuboble wrote: post #85
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…

Evaluation doesn't matter as far as I understand. If 19 beats 18 in a match on billion playouts then it's a feature. Any usability of stockfish evaluation for human analysis is collateral. Unfortunately there seem to be no serious fork of stockfish that would care about usability for human analysis. I was recently doing some larger study and I stumbled upon a bug/feature of stockfish where it accepts small number of…

Is your fork public? Have an example of where Stockfish does not blunder with your change?

Re: Stockfish 19

#155

Post by ekelsen »

Aachen wrote: post #89
Isofarro wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding is that AlphaZero only really existed for a year or two; It still exists, but it's private / internal, and sometimes used for a few different things. It was used by Kramnik to test the hypothesis whether no-castling chess was viable (basically chess, but disallowing castling). That was a year after DeepMind published the match they ran of AlphaZero versus Stockfish. It was still in use last year, I…

> It was used by Kramnik to test the hypothesis whether no-castling chess was viable (basically chess, but disallowing castling). Viable in what way? That it's advantageous to never castle if an engine learns to play with that directive? Or that it still makes for a fun game with that new rule?

The hope was that it would be a slight rule tweak that would lead to fewer draws without favoring white too strongly.

Re: Stockfish 19

#156

Post by gobdovan »

olooney wrote: post #63
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.

That's true. Chess only teaches two general lessons about strategy: look more than one step ahead, and invent heuristics (abstractions that let you estimate if positions are good or bad) for yourself. Those are useful lessons, but you don't need to play thousands of games to grasp those ideas. Other aspects of strategy, like shortening decision loops[1], forming alliances, or the exploration/exploitation tradeoff[3],…

> Chess only teaches two general lessons about strategy: look more than one step ahead, and invent heuristics

That is true for an engine.

Meta-games around studying your opponent, specific match preparation and all those game theoretic stuff are so pervasive people claim they are 'killing' chess at top levels. Anyway, for humans, chess at high levels of mastery is a striking display of bootstrapping some insane cognitive machinery around memory, processing speed, 'expanding' working memory via understanding:

[0] Alekhine blindfold simultaneous vs 32 opponents: https://www.blindfoldchess.net/assets/images/alekhine-excerp...

[1] Reingold, Charness, Pomplun & Stampe (2001), "Visual Span in Expert Chess Players": https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11294228/

[2] Connors, Burns & Campitelli (2011), "Expertise in Complex Decision Making: The Role of Search in Chess 70 Years After de Groot": https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1551-6709...

Re: Stockfish 19

#157

Post by debatem1 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #64
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 :)

It’s oddly fun to put maximum Stockfish in play against some horrible position and to be murdered by it.

Feels like a variant of "really bad chess". Would make for a fun game.

Re: Stockfish 19

#158

Post by crystaln »

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?

Stockfish has created entirely new lines in chess which people incorporate into their play. For instance an early pawn push to h4 is now common among chess pros. It's value was not recognized before Stockfish.

Re: Stockfish 19

#159

Post by crystaln »

olooney wrote: post #63
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.

That's true. Chess only teaches two general lessons about strategy: look more than one step ahead, and invent heuristics (abstractions that let you estimate if positions are good or bad) for yourself. Those are useful lessons, but you don't need to play thousands of games to grasp those ideas. Other aspects of strategy, like shortening decision loops[1], forming alliances, or the exploration/exploitation tradeoff[3],…

"Only teaches two useful lessons" seems a little certain.

Off the top of my head I can think of a number - the value of diversity and the contextual power of capabilities such as the power of weaker pieces used diligently, and the power of counterintuitive sacrifices.

Chess also makes no accommodation for your fantasies and ego. There is no luck, only skill.

There is also much to be garnered from the layered complexity of strategy, where some strategies will take you to a certain level of play that need to be completely replaced or expanded with nuance to reach a higher level.

There are many lessons to be learned from chess.

That said, I would not recommend anyone become good at chess to get good at life.

Re: Stockfish 19

#160

Post by crystaln »

My favorite chess quote:

"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."

I find this to be very valid.

Post reply on HN