Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 83
  1. #31
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    LOL...This is clearly a ''clinical'' case
    I am also acutely aware of the insurmountable abyss between levels of understanding.
    If you are a scientist, you should study me then.

  2. #32
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Some countries had national Candidate Master titles.
    Right, officially, I am a Bulgarian candidate master since 1998.(the only year in my life so far, when
    I devoted more time to competitive chess)

  3. #33
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    77
    Part II of the book is out:

    https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-...9083087&sr=1-1

    (both paperbacks and ebooks included, just switch between versions)

    Also available on other amazons, uk, de, etc.(search by author and title)

    In this edition, games against Stockfish DD, Stockfish 5, 6 and Komodo 10 are represented.

    7 or 8 different openings featured, basically boiling down to 4 main winning pawn structures:

    - Stonewall Attack(Stonewall Defence): pawns on d4-e3-f4, d5-e6-f5 for black
    - King's Indian Attack(King's Indian Defence): pawns on d3-e4-f5, d6-e5-f4 in the standard KID for black
    - Central chain structure, arising out of the Queen's Pawn Game, Torre Attack(or out of the possible Slav for black): pawns on c3-d4-e5, c6-d5-e4 for black
    - Central bind structure, arising out of the English Opening(Sicilian Defence for black): pawns on c4-d3-e4, c5-d6-e5 for black

    It is not easy to beat the top engines, so take a look at the games and explanations.
    Maybe, you will find that interesting.

  4. #34
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    77
    Page count has risen from 165 to 238, so I suppose overpowering the engines has become a bit
    more difficult, but that also should entail higher quality of the games.

    Later, I will post here some readily accessible game, so that Mr. Bonham would not think I am
    visiting only for commercial purposes.

    Long live computer chess!

  5. #35
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    13
    I think the openings are a bit illogical,

    It does not make much sense to play king's Indian defense as the computer is especially strong in sharp positions
    Playing the stonewall as white is known to be bad as it almost guarantees black a way to trade off his light squared bishops leaving white permanantly crippled and as black it is supposed to be good only under certain circumstances, which you will not get very often.
    It's incredibly difficult, if not impossible to get the c6, d5, e4 pawn structure as black in the opening if white doesn't play badly and even if you do get it, you get positions similar to the Caro-Kann and French, which are both well respected and it's hard to see any fantastic advantage you obtain in getting these structures.
    The 'central bind structure' is playable as white, but doesn't give much advantage and with white playing properly, it's very difficult to get as black.
    However, the computer does have difficulty in playing against the king's Indian attack-like setup you mentioned before (with e4, e6, d3, d5, nc3, d4) and I think that you can get an advantage against it. But an advantage is all and I fail to see how anyone besides another engine can convert it into a win against such powerful defenders.
    "Solve the draw death: take a sledgehammer to your laptop..."

  6. #36
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Quote Originally Posted by LyudmilTsvetkov View Post
    Later, I will post here some readily accessible game, so that Mr. Bonham would not think I am
    visiting only for commercial purposes.
    As previously advised my correct title is Dr, whereas you have provided zero evidence that your playing strength is anywhere near as high as you say it is.

    I'm being quite patient concerning your habit of posting commercial links here while advertising yourself in an apparently deceptive manner, but my patience isn't infinite.

  7. #37
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,590
    Quote Originally Posted by onionlord77 View Post
    I think the openings are a bit illogical,

    It does not make much sense to play king's Indian defense as the computer is especially strong in sharp positions
    Playing the stonewall as white is known to be bad as it almost guarantees black a way to trade off his light squared bishops leaving white permanantly crippled and as black it is supposed to be good only under certain circumstances, which you will not get very often.
    It's incredibly difficult, if not impossible to get the c6, d5, e4 pawn structure as black in the opening if white doesn't play badly and even if you do get it, you get positions similar to the Caro-Kann and French, which are both well respected and it's hard to see any fantastic advantage you obtain in getting these structures.
    The 'central bind structure' is playable as white, but doesn't give much advantage and with white playing properly, it's very difficult to get as black.
    However, the computer does have difficulty in playing against the king's Indian attack-like setup you mentioned before (with e4, e6, d3, d5, nc3, d4) and I think that you can get an advantage against it. But an advantage is all and I fail to see how anyone besides another engine can convert it into a win against such powerful defenders.
    Computers win against humans these days....in all of the openings anyway
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  8. #38
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    As previously advised my correct title is Dr, whereas you have provided zero evidence that your playing strength is anywhere near as high as you say it is.

    I'm being quite patient concerning your habit of posting commercial links here while advertising yourself in an apparently deceptive manner, but my patience isn't infinite.
    This is already an insult.
    I have no interest at all to post here.

    But, as I have promised, here a link to a game on talkchess, maybe someone can post the diagram:
    http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewt...682580&t=60954
    I used a bit more time in this game, but Komodo played with contempt, so one must be careful, especially
    in critical moments, under such circumstances.

    Later

  9. #39
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    77
    btw., Mr. Bonham, if you had tried to read 'The Secret of Chess', and understand it,
    and even only pay attention to the comments to the freely available commented games,
    you would have known Who I am in computer chess.

  10. #40
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Computers win against humans these days....in all of the openings anyway
    Not all; in the 4 basic pawn structures, mentioned by me, top engines are still
    very easy to beat.
    You might try that yourself.

  11. #41
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by onionlord77 View Post
    I think the openings are a bit illogical,

    It does not make much sense to play king's Indian defense as the computer is especially strong in sharp positions
    Playing the stonewall as white is known to be bad as it almost guarantees black a way to trade off his light squared bishops leaving white permanantly crippled and as black it is supposed to be good only under certain circumstances, which you will not get very often.
    It's incredibly difficult, if not impossible to get the c6, d5, e4 pawn structure as black in the opening if white doesn't play badly and even if you do get it, you get positions similar to the Caro-Kann and French, which are both well respected and it's hard to see any fantastic advantage you obtain in getting these structures.
    The 'central bind structure' is playable as white, but doesn't give much advantage and with white playing properly, it's very difficult to get as black.
    However, the computer does have difficulty in playing against the king's Indian attack-like setup you mentioned before (with e4, e6, d3, d5, nc3, d4) and I think that you can get an advantage against it. But an advantage is all and I fail to see how anyone besides another engine can convert it into a win against such powerful defenders.
    The king's Indian Defence involving d6-e5-f4 pawns is a closed one and far from sharp, so that is precisely
    the position a human would like to get.
    KID=KIA with black, so if the KIA is good, the KID is good too. One tempo is not of such a critical significance
    at the current level of top engines.
    Concerning the Stonewall Attack, indeed, white has fully equal, draw, at most, if black plays Bf5 early on to trade
    light square bishops, but, fortunately, even current Stockfish development still prefers e6 and Bb7/a6(not Komodo though).
    c6-d5-e4 is not that hard to get, both Stockfish and Komodo like a line like 1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 g6!(this is the trick,
    definitely strongest continuation) 5. e3 Bg4!(again, best) 6. h3(that is how top engines play) Bg4 7. Qf3(bishop pair lacking,
    but the queen is very displaced here) e6, then Bd6/g7, and at some point e6-e5 break is pushed.
    de5 is rarely good, so there are excellent chances black will push e5-e4 later on, getting the abovementioned structure.
    Of course, as the game is closed, engines see nothing, black will get decisive advantage only 20 moves later after a lot
    of regrouping.
    On the contrary, the central bind is best possilbe disposition for white at all, as 1. c4 is definitely white's best possible move.
    For example, 1. c4! e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4!(g3 first, followed by Bg2 is also possible), and white gets big advantage, not sure if
    winning though.
    With black, you can get that for example from the Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rossolimo variation(see the game I just posted), as top engines
    still prefer 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. Nc3? Later black plays Bg7 and e5, and the bind is there. Very simple.

    As you see, I know my theory by heart.
    I supposed you think like that, simply because you have played less than 10 thousand games against engines;
    I have played more than 50 thousand.

    Anyway, thanks for the constructive feedback, I like it that way very much, instead of the constant meaningless
    obstructions and shallow unsubstantiated comments.

  12. #42
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Quote Originally Posted by LyudmilTsvetkov View Post
    This is already an insult.
    I have no interest at all to post here.
    While you continue to call me "Mr. Bonham" in an obvious attempt to troll, I couldn't care less what you consider an insult.

    I also couldn't care less if you post here or not. If you don't want to post here then don't.

    And I am not going to buy your book and I strongly advise others not to buy it either at this stage. The idea that any evidence that I have to pay for to see should be relevant here is just silly. Nor am I going to trawl through your posts on other forums, though I am likely to look at a modest number of them if directly linked.

    But, as I have promised, here a link to a game on talkchess, maybe someone can post the diagram:
    http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewt...682580&t=60954
    I used a bit more time in this game, but Komodo played with contempt, so one must be careful, especially
    in critical moments, under such circumstances.
    So this is a game supposedly played at 2 mins plus 2 seconds per move, where it is clear from the time taken on the opening moves that the computer did not have an opening book enabled. The text after the white moves shows the computer's evaluations and presumably its time taken. We can see that it runs itself down to a few seconds. However in the case of the black moves, they are all made within a few seconds up to a certain point, at which they become slower - much slower in fact. Overall it seems you used 765 seconds to 165 - ten minutes more than your opponent in a 2+2 blitz, so it appears you were playing with a large time handicap in your favour and not on equal terms. This is the meaning of your "I used a bit more time"?

    You also write "but Komodo played with contempt". I assume this is the meaning of the computer's strange evaluations (the opening position is certainly not +1.23 to white). Presumably you have set the contempt factor to make it more likely the computer will keep trying to win even if it actually thinks it is up to a point (or so) worse. This increases the chance that you will win the game because the computer will play for a win while it is worse (up to a point), so this again makes it unrepresentative. Indeed if you were really as strong as you claim to be it would be obvious to you that you should set the computer not to treat you like a patzer.

    So I am very unimpressed by this evidence. It was a handicap game.

  13. #43
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    While you continue to call me "Mr. Bonham" in an obvious attempt to troll, I couldn't care less what you consider an insult.

    I also couldn't care less if you post here or not. If you don't want to post here then don't.

    And I am not going to buy your book and I strongly advise others not to buy it either at this stage. The idea that any evidence that I have to pay for to see should be relevant here is just silly. Nor am I going to trawl through your posts on other forums, though I am likely to look at a modest number of them if directly linked.



    So this is a game supposedly played at 2 mins plus 2 seconds per move, where it is clear from the time taken on the opening moves that the computer did not have an opening book enabled. The text after the white moves shows the computer's evaluations and presumably its time taken. We can see that it runs itself down to a few seconds. However in the case of the black moves, they are all made within a few seconds up to a certain point, at which they become slower - much slower in fact. Overall it seems you used 765 seconds to 165 - ten minutes more than your opponent in a 2+2 blitz, so it appears you were playing with a large time handicap in your favour and not on equal terms. This is the meaning of your "I used a bit more time"?

    You also write "but Komodo played with contempt". I assume this is the meaning of the computer's strange evaluations (the opening position is certainly not +1.23 to white). Presumably you have set the contempt factor to make it more likely the computer will keep trying to win even if it actually thinks it is up to a point (or so) worse. This increases the chance that you will win the game because the computer will play for a win while it is worse (up to a point), so this again makes it unrepresentative. Indeed if you were really as strong as you claim to be it would be obvious to you that you should set the computer not to treat you like a patzer.

    So I am very unimpressed by this evidence. It was a handicap game.
    Dear Mr. Bonham.

    If you had read the thread on talkchess, you would have known that this was a game at TC
    2' + 2'' for Komodo, and 10' + 10'' for me, that is, 5 times as much.
    Usually, I play at 2 times longer TC than the engine, but, sometimes, I play at fully equal
    terms, and at other times, with more time allocated to me. Standard is 2 times more though, and I have
    already stated that repeatedly.

    As said, I allocated myself more time, because Komodo was using contempt, and contempt, much to your
    very wrong belief, tremendously handicaps the human player, for the simple reason that the engine will all
    the time want to open the game.
    Actually, in Komodo contempt works precisely that way: open files, attacking, etc., are bonised, to the detriment of
    more positional factors.

    If you want to know more about contempt, you might want to read some related threads on talkchess, search for info about
    Komodo contempt, or even try to directly contact Larry Kaufman for further detail.
    One thing is certain: contempt greatly handicaps the human player.

    Besides that, this was still a fast game, and fast games again greatly handicap the human player.

    So, I can not in any way accept I have received some very large handicap in that game, maybe a little
    bit, but not much.

    You say it is easy to this way against the top engines, ok then, use the very same TC, play 20 games,
    and report the result. In case you manage a better score than me, than I will whole-heartedly congratulate you.
    My score out of 20 games was +2 -8 = 10(and I had a bad day, you know).

    Even more importantly, I am playing much stronger, when I don't have to look constantly at the clock.

    Computer played without a book, of course, no one uses books these days, people play either from the starting
    position, or using some handicap. Books are a things of the past. Even Stockfish uses only 2-move long book
    to test on their framework.

    Btw., you don't need books, books are all wrong, for example, most people even don't know that the Dutch
    is completely unplayable for black, as after 1. d4 f5?, white has 2. d5! with large advantage. People have not checked it,
    they just follow blindly 'theory'.
    My theory, on the other hand, is based on countless opening analysis sessions with Stockfish and Komodo, that is the best
    way to analyse theory.

    One thing you can not understand is that, nowadays, with the availability of such strong engines, a devoted person using
    Stockfish or Komodo, even if not officially competing, can be much much stronger than a lot of the leading chess players.
    The leading chess players only occasionally use the top engines, while I never do anything different than that.

    The world of chess has changed, and it will change even more so in the future.
    Btw., the first thing I do when I try to prepare, is to very carefully investigate all TCEC games twice; once I have done so
    and also carefully having investigated all world champions game collections twice, and understood each and every move,
    I really don't need to do anything else.

    Ok, I am very eager to know how you will score out of 10 games versus Komodo under the same conditions.
    To pass my score, you need only 3.5/10.

    Good luck.

  14. #44
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    77
    btw., if people are not aware, these days even top human players have difficulties getting even draws
    against the top engines, even with 1-2 pawns handicaps and more.

    So I don't think I played that weak.

    Here a second win of mine posted in the very same thread:
    http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewt...682136&t=60954

  15. #45
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Quote Originally Posted by LyudmilTsvetkov View Post
    Dear Mr.[sic] Bonham.

    If you had read the thread on talkchess, you would have known that this was a game at TC
    2' + 2'' for Komodo, and 10' + 10'' for me, that is, 5 times as much.
    So you now admit it is "5 times as much" which you previously said was "a bit more time". When I play against computers - not that I do this much at the moment - I play them with completely equal time.

    You have not shown us anything in terms of ability to beat computers with equal time consistently, let alone at all. If you were as strong as you claim to be you would be able to beat computers with equal time in a significant number of cases.

    As said, I allocated myself more time, because Komodo was using contempt, and contempt, much to your
    very wrong belief, tremendously handicaps the human player, for the simple reason that the engine will all
    the time want to open the game.

    Actually, in Komodo contempt works precisely that way: open files, attacking, etc., are bonised, to the detriment of
    more positional factors.
    In other words it will play positionally unsound attacks, making it more likely to lose if those attacks fail.

    It's also clear that you were playing a rehearsed line against it, probably one you had tested in a very large number of games. While there's nothing wrong with doing so, the ability to draw with or beat computers using rehearsed lines does not prove anything about your playing strength, especially not if the computer has no learning ability enabled.

    Besides that, this was still a fast game, and fast games again greatly handicap the human player.
    Rubbish; it was a very fast game for the computer. It was not nearly so fast a game for you.

    You say it is easy to this way against the top engines,
    Where did I say this?

    ok then, use the very same TC, play 20 games,
    and report the result. In case you manage a better score than me, than I will whole-heartedly congratulate you.
    My score out of 20 games was +2 -8 = 10(and I had a bad day, you know).
    Not interested. I could not care less whether you are a stronger player than me or not. I could not care less whether you are better at beating computers than me (under the same conditions or not). I am interested in whether you can provide any evidence to support your claims to be over 2600 strength. You have provided no such evidence.

    Even more importantly, I am playing much stronger, when I don't have to look constantly at the clock.
    Then show some games you have played against computers at very long time controls under controlled conditions.

    One thing you can not understand is that, nowadays, with the availability of such strong engines, a devoted person using
    Stockfish or Komodo, even if not officially competing, can be much much stronger than a lot of the leading chess players.
    If this was true then there would be players who, starting from a relatively low playing strength, trained using Stockfish or Komodo, and increased their playing strength to the point where they could become leading chess players.

    Then these players would be able to win large amounts of prizemoney by performing well in over-the-board tournaments.

    And yet, there are no known cases of this happening.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 28-10-2017 at 01:14 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Man vs Machine
    By Alexrules01 in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-02-2011, 09:01 PM
  2. Axiom v Sigma Chess 6.1 [Possum vs Machine]
    By Basil in forum Correspondence Matches
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 13-03-2007, 09:09 PM
  3. Man versus Machine: the Ultimate showdown
    By qpawn in forum Correspondence Matches
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-08-2006, 02:04 PM
  4. Australia versus Scotland
    By Davidflude in forum Correspondence Chess News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17-11-2005, 04:05 PM
  5. Men v Machine match in Indonesia
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-01-2005, 04:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •