occam's razor en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
@Hellrazer: Just do a quick search through the talkchess.com forums; it's the main forum online for all things chess engine-related.
There have been a few people over the last few years that regularly posted their "wins" against SF/Komodo/Houdini there.
I'll try to run through the game in the next 24 hours with K5 to see how it looks.
@Lightsss: Indeed...now I'm going to go beat Lebron in a few games of 1v1 to warm him up for tonight's game :)
There have been a few people over the last few years that regularly posted their "wins" against SF/Komodo/Houdini there.
I'll try to run through the game in the next 24 hours with K5 to see how it looks.
@Lightsss: Indeed...now I'm going to go beat Lebron in a few games of 1v1 to warm him up for tonight's game :)
@qweasdzxc88 you mean the guy I mentioned? I know him very well, and I'm very good with people. He did not cheat. I offered the game to him, he did not play chess for years, and knows very little about computers.
@LM Lightsss I know Occam's razor, but you don't know him.
I cannot do that, but you seen good in chess yourself, Why don't you try yourself? He said he also believed some people can do that if they try.
I'm not here to convince anyone, skepticism is expected. I'm just here to share. The game is legit. Believe it or not.
@LM Lightsss I know Occam's razor, but you don't know him.
I cannot do that, but you seen good in chess yourself, Why don't you try yourself? He said he also believed some people can do that if they try.
I'm not here to convince anyone, skepticism is expected. I'm just here to share. The game is legit. Believe it or not.
Ok, from a quick run through the game with K5 it looks like it's at least conceivable that K5 would play the black side of the game.
There were a couple moves I couldn't reproduce, but in neither case did K5 think the move played was any worse than its first move.
So, that concern is (mostly) put to rest.
The rest of the concerns still stand (i.e., I'm still calling shenanigans on the claim that an unassisted human who has never studied openings, books, etc. played the white side).
For kicks and giggles, since the interesting part of the game is very short, I went through and made some comments.
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. f4 {The so-called Greco gambit in the Bishop's
opening. It's very rare, but not terrible as far as gambits go.} d5 {A
sensible move, certainly. The alternatives are Nxe4 and exf4.
After
3...Nxe4 play could proceed with some chaotic adventures after 4.d3 Qh4+
5.g3 Nxg3 6.Nf3. 3...exf4 transposes to a sideline in the King's Gambit
with Bc4.} 4. exd5 Nxd5 {This already basically new ground. Previously e4
and exf4 have been tried. Nothing wrong with Nxd5, though.} 5. Ne2 Bc5 {So
far so good. Other possible moves here are Be6, exf4, and Nxf4.} 6. Nbc3
Nb6 {As a human, this would be my first quibble. There's nothing
objectively wrong with it, but in a position where white has given black
easy development in exchange for some kingside pressure, swapping off a
pair pieces with Nxc3 and continuing development is very appealing. As a
bonus, SF 7 thinks that's a stronger continuation anyway.} 7. Bb3 Qh4+
{This is another quibble for me, the human. Remember all that stuff books
say about developing pieces? Turns out that chess really is that simple
sometimes! Nc6 or 0-0 would be simple and good. Still, while I would rather
not go in for such adventures, it seems playable.} 8. g3 Qh3 {Not
surprisingly, I'm not so keen on this move either. I'd prefer Qh5, leaving
h3 for another piece, like my bishop on a good day. It also means that in
many lines, white will have to settle for a queen trade to get along with
his development. Qh3-g2 seems aggressive, I suppose, but the only thing
really in danger there is black's queen.} 9. Rf1 Qg2 {Qxh2 was also
possible, although the game would be messier than I would like as black, as
after 9...Qxh2 10.fxe5, black should probably go for complications with
10...Bh3 11.Bxf7+ Ke7 or similar, since 10...0-0 11.d4 gives white
everything one would want out of a gambit with no risk. The immediate 0-0
is also possible, although again with d4 coming black hasn't exactly
punished white's opening play. At any rate, Qg2 is acceptable objectively.}
10. f5 O-O {This is the first move that I can fairly call a real mistake.
It's a bit odd to say, since the other moves that looked strange weren't
really bad moves, and castling, a very normal move, I am saying is a
mistake! What gives? Well, the point is concrete. White wants to put a
knight on e4, after which he will have the makings of a very strong attack.
Right now that's not possible because of the Qg2, so White wants to play
d3, Ne4, and start flowing pieces to the kingside. Castling kingside runs
right into this. Instead, black's best would be N8d7, after which White has
to switch gears, since d3 is then met by Nf6!, when Ne4 is no longer a real
attacking try, and black even has Ng4 ideas that keep white' s life
difficult. Who said developing pieces was a good idea? Whoever it was, give
that man a gold star!} 11. d3 a5 12. a3 N6d7 {The insertion of a5 and a3
haven't really changed the position. White's comfortably better, as he has
all the play going forward. N6d7 seems fine, but black could consider other
moves, like Qxh2 (as we shall see, this was seriously to be considered
before White could meet it with Qf3) and even Kh8!?. Kh8 gets out of any
tricks along the a2-g8 diagonal, and also means any subsequent knights that
might land on f6 don't do so with check. SF 7 didn't like Kh8 at first, but
we had a talk and it ended up thinking it was a reasonable way to play.}
13. Ne4 Ba7 {Now black's problems are quite serious. Black needed to
seriously consider playing Qxh2 and making white prove the attack, or again
play Kh8 to solve some of the upcoming kingside problems. Nxc5 by white is
not a threat, since the knight is so much stronger than that bishop. Ba7 is
also a tempo that doesn't help on the kingside at all. After Ba7 N2c3!,
white's simple idea of bringing the queen over to the kingside makes
black's position probably already lost. Either Qxh2 or Kh8 (the engine
prefers Qxh2, but I'm suspicious; I'd stick with Kh8, which it also thinks
is fine) would keep the game interesting, although there's no question
who's calling the shots.} 14. N2c3 Qxh2 {Black was likely already lost, but
this is just suicide.} 15. Qf3 Nc6 16. Rh1 Nd4 17. Qf1 Nxc2+ 18. Bxc2 Qxc2
19. Qh3 Bf2+ 20. Nxf2 Nf6 21. Nce4 {The rest is supremely uninteresting.} *
There were a couple moves I couldn't reproduce, but in neither case did K5 think the move played was any worse than its first move.
So, that concern is (mostly) put to rest.
The rest of the concerns still stand (i.e., I'm still calling shenanigans on the claim that an unassisted human who has never studied openings, books, etc. played the white side).
For kicks and giggles, since the interesting part of the game is very short, I went through and made some comments.
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. f4 {The so-called Greco gambit in the Bishop's
opening. It's very rare, but not terrible as far as gambits go.} d5 {A
sensible move, certainly. The alternatives are Nxe4 and exf4.
After
3...Nxe4 play could proceed with some chaotic adventures after 4.d3 Qh4+
5.g3 Nxg3 6.Nf3. 3...exf4 transposes to a sideline in the King's Gambit
with Bc4.} 4. exd5 Nxd5 {This already basically new ground. Previously e4
and exf4 have been tried. Nothing wrong with Nxd5, though.} 5. Ne2 Bc5 {So
far so good. Other possible moves here are Be6, exf4, and Nxf4.} 6. Nbc3
Nb6 {As a human, this would be my first quibble. There's nothing
objectively wrong with it, but in a position where white has given black
easy development in exchange for some kingside pressure, swapping off a
pair pieces with Nxc3 and continuing development is very appealing. As a
bonus, SF 7 thinks that's a stronger continuation anyway.} 7. Bb3 Qh4+
{This is another quibble for me, the human. Remember all that stuff books
say about developing pieces? Turns out that chess really is that simple
sometimes! Nc6 or 0-0 would be simple and good. Still, while I would rather
not go in for such adventures, it seems playable.} 8. g3 Qh3 {Not
surprisingly, I'm not so keen on this move either. I'd prefer Qh5, leaving
h3 for another piece, like my bishop on a good day. It also means that in
many lines, white will have to settle for a queen trade to get along with
his development. Qh3-g2 seems aggressive, I suppose, but the only thing
really in danger there is black's queen.} 9. Rf1 Qg2 {Qxh2 was also
possible, although the game would be messier than I would like as black, as
after 9...Qxh2 10.fxe5, black should probably go for complications with
10...Bh3 11.Bxf7+ Ke7 or similar, since 10...0-0 11.d4 gives white
everything one would want out of a gambit with no risk. The immediate 0-0
is also possible, although again with d4 coming black hasn't exactly
punished white's opening play. At any rate, Qg2 is acceptable objectively.}
10. f5 O-O {This is the first move that I can fairly call a real mistake.
It's a bit odd to say, since the other moves that looked strange weren't
really bad moves, and castling, a very normal move, I am saying is a
mistake! What gives? Well, the point is concrete. White wants to put a
knight on e4, after which he will have the makings of a very strong attack.
Right now that's not possible because of the Qg2, so White wants to play
d3, Ne4, and start flowing pieces to the kingside. Castling kingside runs
right into this. Instead, black's best would be N8d7, after which White has
to switch gears, since d3 is then met by Nf6!, when Ne4 is no longer a real
attacking try, and black even has Ng4 ideas that keep white' s life
difficult. Who said developing pieces was a good idea? Whoever it was, give
that man a gold star!} 11. d3 a5 12. a3 N6d7 {The insertion of a5 and a3
haven't really changed the position. White's comfortably better, as he has
all the play going forward. N6d7 seems fine, but black could consider other
moves, like Qxh2 (as we shall see, this was seriously to be considered
before White could meet it with Qf3) and even Kh8!?. Kh8 gets out of any
tricks along the a2-g8 diagonal, and also means any subsequent knights that
might land on f6 don't do so with check. SF 7 didn't like Kh8 at first, but
we had a talk and it ended up thinking it was a reasonable way to play.}
13. Ne4 Ba7 {Now black's problems are quite serious. Black needed to
seriously consider playing Qxh2 and making white prove the attack, or again
play Kh8 to solve some of the upcoming kingside problems. Nxc5 by white is
not a threat, since the knight is so much stronger than that bishop. Ba7 is
also a tempo that doesn't help on the kingside at all. After Ba7 N2c3!,
white's simple idea of bringing the queen over to the kingside makes
black's position probably already lost. Either Qxh2 or Kh8 (the engine
prefers Qxh2, but I'm suspicious; I'd stick with Kh8, which it also thinks
is fine) would keep the game interesting, although there's no question
who's calling the shots.} 14. N2c3 Qxh2 {Black was likely already lost, but
this is just suicide.} 15. Qf3 Nc6 16. Rh1 Nd4 17. Qf1 Nxc2+ 18. Bxc2 Qxc2
19. Qh3 Bf2+ 20. Nxf2 Nf6 21. Nce4 {The rest is supremely uninteresting.} *
So you are asking why don't people try to beat the top chess engines anymore. The answer is that there is not a single person that plays chess and hasn't tried to beat a chess engine. That's why everyone agrees that there is no chance...
That being said they are not invincible. The game is not solved so the engines don't make perfect moves yet. Which means that there is a probability to get a win against them. That's why their elo is calculated just around 3300.
But this guy claims that cannot be defeated by an engine??? That's a joke... The greatest players humanity has ever seen have admitted they have no chance against engines and this one guy who hasn't played chess for years just claims he can consistently beat engines and you believe him??? Does he have an elo of 4000? Do you also believe in God?!
But there is nothing supernatural in humans losing to an engine. It's just pure computational power difference. Just consider that Kasparov lost to an engine in mid nineties. We hardly had mobile phones at that time... And except from the hardware improvement the software has done huge leaps.
Finally, the time format won't make any important difference. Complexity of chess increases exponentially by move. Humans can hardly calculate in two moves depth. When we claim that someone looked at 8 moves depth we don't literally mean that he checked every possible variation for the next 8 moves but that he calculated a seemingly forced line and probably a couple of variations of it. The difference between the top players and the rest grandmasters is not in their calculation skills but in their understanding of the position. Which again is nothing supernatural. Just after having played thousands of games their experience indicates to them what their priorities should be in any given position. So after some point more time doesn't help too much. We cannot compete against the machines in calculations even if the machine runs for a minute and we spent one lifetime for each move. And that's not an exaggeration. If you do the math you will see that we will need a lot of lifetimes to calculate what the machine does in 60 seconds.
So there is no mystery in the fact that we all know, namely that we all have tried to beat an engine and we all have been totally destroyed even using all the past humanity's knowledge, the openings.
Of course your friend wants to stay anonymous...
I have no doubt you are good in understanding people but for the time being I would suggest you to stay away from him...
That being said they are not invincible. The game is not solved so the engines don't make perfect moves yet. Which means that there is a probability to get a win against them. That's why their elo is calculated just around 3300.
But this guy claims that cannot be defeated by an engine??? That's a joke... The greatest players humanity has ever seen have admitted they have no chance against engines and this one guy who hasn't played chess for years just claims he can consistently beat engines and you believe him??? Does he have an elo of 4000? Do you also believe in God?!
But there is nothing supernatural in humans losing to an engine. It's just pure computational power difference. Just consider that Kasparov lost to an engine in mid nineties. We hardly had mobile phones at that time... And except from the hardware improvement the software has done huge leaps.
Finally, the time format won't make any important difference. Complexity of chess increases exponentially by move. Humans can hardly calculate in two moves depth. When we claim that someone looked at 8 moves depth we don't literally mean that he checked every possible variation for the next 8 moves but that he calculated a seemingly forced line and probably a couple of variations of it. The difference between the top players and the rest grandmasters is not in their calculation skills but in their understanding of the position. Which again is nothing supernatural. Just after having played thousands of games their experience indicates to them what their priorities should be in any given position. So after some point more time doesn't help too much. We cannot compete against the machines in calculations even if the machine runs for a minute and we spent one lifetime for each move. And that's not an exaggeration. If you do the math you will see that we will need a lot of lifetimes to calculate what the machine does in 60 seconds.
So there is no mystery in the fact that we all know, namely that we all have tried to beat an engine and we all have been totally destroyed even using all the past humanity's knowledge, the openings.
Of course your friend wants to stay anonymous...
I have no doubt you are good in understanding people but for the time being I would suggest you to stay away from him...
You think am not impressed? Now I am more impressed. I know it is strange. Thats why I posted here. You take chess very seriouly. Like an sport. He don't. He IS just a random guy, he did not played in any club, nor profissionaly, or correspondence, and do not played many games in his life. Chess is only a small hobby for him. I believe because I see him playing. And I never see someone playing a chess so strong. Not all his games take several days. He smashed Deep Shredder 12 in few hours. I think he put something like 2 minutes per move for Shredder. I have the game. I am no chess specialist. I said to try, because he said if a good player tried enough he can beat any chess engine, so he was wrong, I don't care, he talks a lot of b*******. So no one can do that, that make the things even worse... Believe in what you want, I don't care. I just don't want someone here to verify the autheticity. He said if something gets in his face he will blame me. The game is from 2015 because he did not want me to post it. But now he gave me authorization. He is a little crazy. I think I can make him face Stockfish 7 or whatever you want. You can think he is just a guy who use a lot of chess engines, it is good to me.
So, you just met someone who needs attention and tried to attract the admiration of a kid by telling him lots of bullshit. And trying to keep his fairytale alive says more and more nonsense. Like "if something gets in his face he will blame me". Does that make any sense? Do you even think at all about what he says? What can get up to his face? We are talking about a board game!!! He is just trying to impress you by acting like his intentions are inconceivable and cover his apparent lies with nonsense mysticism.
And even if you recognize he talks bullshit you choose to believe that he is the hidden Messiah because he is the best player you have seen. And you are just a beginner...
Of course I know that if someone wants to believe he will believe. So I am not going to persist.
The last thing I will suggest is that next time he will play against an engine ask him to play in your PC and let you watch him and in case he does in the end of the game ask him to play another game using a different line. There are known lines where the engine goes wrong so he may have found one such line and reproduce it in front of you. (You can look at the Zug miracle, a win that was reproduced by many other players after following the same line Zugaddict did against stockfish 7) There is the possibility he has found more than one such lines but what to do?! And don't forget to think if the excuse he will provide this time makes any sense...
Best!
PS Assumptions that are irrelevant to the discussion like that I take chess seriously are not needed. I started playing chess just the last year and very sporadically.
And even if you recognize he talks bullshit you choose to believe that he is the hidden Messiah because he is the best player you have seen. And you are just a beginner...
Of course I know that if someone wants to believe he will believe. So I am not going to persist.
The last thing I will suggest is that next time he will play against an engine ask him to play in your PC and let you watch him and in case he does in the end of the game ask him to play another game using a different line. There are known lines where the engine goes wrong so he may have found one such line and reproduce it in front of you. (You can look at the Zug miracle, a win that was reproduced by many other players after following the same line Zugaddict did against stockfish 7) There is the possibility he has found more than one such lines but what to do?! And don't forget to think if the excuse he will provide this time makes any sense...
Best!
PS Assumptions that are irrelevant to the discussion like that I take chess seriously are not needed. I started playing chess just the last year and very sporadically.
@qweasdzxc88 You are funny, I am 28 years old. But I think I will stop now. I only wanted analysis of the games. I don't want to prove anything, but I see you take things very seriously. He is not a Messiah, it only a board game as you said. You cannot say I did not do my part. He did not want any kind publicity. You know some guys are like this. You know Bobby Fisher mental problems. What do I gain betraying his trust? You take me for a fool. LOL. You cannot say I did not warn you. I don't want anymore pressure to show the proof. I thought can show the games. Maybe I was wrong. I don't want to draw attention. I think I will stop this. Bye.
you see my friend, i'll try to be as polite as possible here, there is no irony or sarcasm intended.
the reason why i am calling occam's razor is simple.. what is more likely, that we have an amazing unknown natural talent performing above masters, or that he's using some kind of underhanded method (whatever that would be)?
it's not that the first hypothesis can't be true, it's just that the second one is much more likely.
if he's that good, then great! he can do whatever he wants of course, but if he wants to challenge himself at that kind of time control he might find it fun to play correspondence here or in other sites, or even compete against the centaurs at iccf.
the reason why i am calling occam's razor is simple.. what is more likely, that we have an amazing unknown natural talent performing above masters, or that he's using some kind of underhanded method (whatever that would be)?
it's not that the first hypothesis can't be true, it's just that the second one is much more likely.
if he's that good, then great! he can do whatever he wants of course, but if he wants to challenge himself at that kind of time control he might find it fun to play correspondence here or in other sites, or even compete against the centaurs at iccf.
#19 Or if indeed he is that good, he could consider playing in events like the Millionaire Chess Open and make some serious money (assuming that a chess clock isn't his kryptonite).
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.