Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 83
  1. #46
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,386
    Quote Originally Posted by LyudmilTsvetkov View Post
    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.
    In single games or small numbers of games. We don't have very much evidence involving very top class players playing large numbers of such games, because they have better things to do with their time.

    The problem with these handicap games as evidence of playing strength is the difficulty of establishing what the impact on expected score of the handicap is.

    For instance if Komodo plays a match against itself, with one side playing with 2+2 and the other side playing with 10+10, what does the side with 2+2 score?

    If contempt is added to the side playing with 2+2 how does this affect the result?

    (I accept that contempt of the style you mention would be important at increasing the computer's chances in a game played at material odds. But that tells us nothing about games played at time odds.)

  2. #47
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    In single games or small numbers of games. We don't have very much evidence involving very top class players playing large numbers of such games, because they have better things to do with their time.

    The problem with these handicap games as evidence of playing strength is the difficulty of establishing what the impact on expected score of the handicap is.

    For instance if Komodo plays a match against itself, with one side playing with 2+2 and the other side playing with 10+10, what does the side with 2+2 score?

    If contempt is added to the side playing with 2+2 how does this affect the result?

    (I accept that contempt of the style you mention would be important at increasing the computer's chances in a game played at material odds. But that tells us nothing about games played at time odds.)
    Dear Mr. Bonham,

    unfortunately, all of your comments/claims, precisely 100%, so 6/6, are wrong.

    1) you want me to play on equal terms at blitz with Komodo; who does that nowadays? Of course, this might be possible,
    but you should waste an enormous amount of energy, after which there is no more fun in the game
    2) if you don't know, current Komodo score in handicap matches(2 pawns, knight for pawn, pawn and tempos, etc.) versus
    a pool of maybe 15 or so players with elo average about 2500-2600 is something like +30 - 0 =10(some early wins for the humans
    from very favourable positions not counted in); from here to the top it is only 200 elo, so completely insignificant to change the result.
    Recently, Nakamura just lost N for missing c7 pawn as black at TC 45' + increment in a rout mode.
    3) just the opposite, contempt works fine under all conditions, material or time handicap alike, and that has been extensively tested by
    Komodo team in their matches. Why should it be otherwise?
    4) I would suggest that you just try my experiment, and then report your score. Have you recently played latest versions of Stockfish and
    Komodo? Those are not the engines from 5-10 years ago. Definitely not. So I simply fail to understand why you would think 3.5/10 at that
    time handicap with the engine using contempt is a bad score. Do you know of someone who scores much better under similar conditions?
    Of course, a human might try to match the tops, but for that to occur TC should be at least 30'.
    5) rest assured, I am an all-round player, already. I can play all kinds of positions, from extremely open to deep strategical ones,
    from sharp Sicilians to QGDs and Caro-Kanns. And at a level you could hardly imagine. You can not imagine the amount of stuff,
    opening, endgame, middlegame, etc., we have been jointly analysing on talkchess during the last 5 years. One certainly gains something, when
    analysing a difficult position with Stockfish for a couple of hours. It is difficult for me to think which types of positions we have not been
    analysing.
    Still, I am sticking mostly to my preferred closed games, as they are objectively the best. The KID is, one way or another, the best possible
    way to handle the game, as long pawn chains are very strong, and it is for a reason that Kasparov and Fischer almost always have chosen
    KID structures. For the very same reason, top engines have difficulties with those, because they are deep ones, requiring 20-30 moves looking ahead
    to see something. Top engines don't have any difficulties at all with open games, for humans this might be a problem, but actually it is trade, trade,
    and the game is over, very shallow.
    6) well, human elo gradually increases, so humans get something, after all, by training with the engines.
    With more time, the effect will be more obvious.

    Now, I have to acknowledge that I would never, ever have reached my current chess understanding, had not it not been for the existence of the top
    engines. They are great pals, helping you here and there. At the same time, I have always searched for original things, new unexplored territories,
    so probably not everyone gets the same out of Stockfish.

  3. #48
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,386
    Quote Originally Posted by LyudmilTsvetkov View Post
    1) you want me to play on equal terms at blitz with Komodo; who does that nowadays? Of course, this might be possible,
    but you should waste an enormous amount of energy, after which there is no more fun in the game
    The point is that you are making extreme claims about your playing strength but providing no way by which they can be assessed. A score against a program with a known estimated rating under controlled conditions might be one way this could be checked. Even if you could only score a few percent (which would be likely however strong you are) this could provide some evidence of playing strength, particularly if you could score in a range of openings and without relying on rehearsed lines. But all you are presenting is these handicap games which are very difficult to benchmark.

    2) if you don't know, current Komodo score in handicap matches(2 pawns, knight for pawn, pawn and tempos, etc.) versus
    a pool of maybe 15 or so players with elo average about 2500-2600 is something like +30 - 0 =10(some early wins for the humans
    from very favourable positions not counted in); from here to the top it is only 200 elo, so completely insignificant to change the result.
    Recently, Nakamura just lost N for missing c7 pawn as black at TC 45' + increment in a rout mode.
    This just shows that you have no clue about ratings. +30-0=10 for the computer is 12.5% for the human. That corresponds to an ELO difference of 336 points suggesting the computer under these conditions is playing at about 2886 vs opponents of average rating 2550. Carlsen would be expected to be very close against it on this basis so your claim "from here to the top it is only 200 elo, so completely insignificant to change the result." is false.

    3) just the opposite, contempt works fine under all conditions, material or time handicap alike, and that has been extensively tested by
    Komodo team in their matches. Why should it be otherwise?
    Feel free to provide a link to reliable evidence for this claim that does not refer to material handicaps. Because of your howler with ratings above I'll assume you don't understand anything in the absence of evidence for it.

    4) I would suggest that you just try my experiment, and then report your score. Have you recently played latest versions of Stockfish and
    Komodo? Those are not the engines from 5-10 years ago. Definitely not. So I simply fail to understand why you would think 3.5/10 at that
    time handicap with the engine using contempt is a bad score. Do you know of someone who scores much better under similar conditions?
    Of course, a human might try to match the tops, but for that to occur TC should be at least 30'.
    Again you are putting things into my mouth that I didn't say and claiming I am "wrong" when you have misrepresented my comments. I did not say 3.5/10 would be a bad score. I just said it is not evidence for your claims to be over 2600 strength, especially not in the absence of evidence of benchmarking of the rating differential for the handicap and contempt arrangement.

    I played a very large number of games against Stockfish 4 between 2014-5 at even time. I do not make any claims about my playing strength based on these games. I am too busy at present to start on a similar project with the latest versions but I may do so in the future. I have no interest in playing a computer at any form of odds. If someone wants to present odds games as evidence of playing strength they need to play them under controlled observed conditions and benchmark them.

    5) rest assured, I am an all-round player, already. I can play all kinds of positions, from extremely open to deep strategical ones,
    from sharp Sicilians to QGDs and Caro-Kanns. And at a level you could hardly imagine.
    Then beat strong human players in an OTB tournament. If you are as good as you claim to be (i) it will be easy (ii) it will not take much time (iii) it will make you a lot more money than trying to flog your book online to people who can see you are a troll who makes untestable claims.

    6) well, human elo gradually increases, so humans get something, after all, by training with the engines.
    Irrelevant to my point that there are no examples of merely strong club players proving that they have become very strong just by playing against computers.

  4. #49
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The point is that you are making extreme claims about your playing strength but providing no way by which they can be assessed. A score against a program with a known estimated rating under controlled conditions might be one way this could be checked. Even if you could only score a few percent (which would be likely however strong you are) this could provide some evidence of playing strength, particularly if you could score in a range of openings and without relying on rehearsed lines. But all you are presenting is these handicap games which are very difficult to benchmark.



    This just shows that you have no clue about ratings. +30-0=10 for the computer is 12.5% for the human. That corresponds to an ELO difference of 336 points suggesting the computer under these conditions is playing at about 2886 vs opponents of average rating 2550. Carlsen would be expected to be very close against it on this basis so your claim "from here to the top it is only 200 elo, so completely insignificant to change the result." is false.



    Feel free to provide a link to reliable evidence for this claim that does not refer to material handicaps. Because of your howler with ratings above I'll assume you don't understand anything in the absence of evidence for it.



    Again you are putting things into my mouth that I didn't say and claiming I am "wrong" when you have misrepresented my comments. I did not say 3.5/10 would be a bad score. I just said it is not evidence for your claims to be over 2600 strength, especially not in the absence of evidence of benchmarking of the rating differential for the handicap and contempt arrangement.

    I played a very large number of games against Stockfish 4 between 2014-5 at even time. I do not make any claims about my playing strength based on these games. I am too busy at present to start on a similar project with the latest versions but I may do so in the future. I have no interest in playing a computer at any form of odds. If someone wants to present odds games as evidence of playing strength they need to play them under controlled observed conditions and benchmark them.



    Then beat strong human players in an OTB tournament. If you are as good as you claim to be (i) it will be easy (ii) it will not take much time (iii) it will make you a lot more money than trying to flog your book online to people who can see you are a troll who makes untestable claims.



    Irrelevant to my point that there are no examples of merely strong club players proving that they have become very strong just by playing against computers.
    Just a brief remark, as you are obviously troll-modding.

    The elo you calculated is for Komodo-handicap versus humans-no-handicap.
    The real performance of Komodo and the humans can be calculated, when you take this into account.

    Well, what to say more, this is not a howler, but a howler to the power of n.

    Later

  5. #50
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    10,264
    Quote Originally Posted by LyudmilTsvetkov View Post
    Just a brief remark, as you are obviously troll-modding.

    The elo you calculated is for Komodo-handicap versus humans-no-handicap.
    The real performance of Komodo and the humans can be calculated, when you take this into account.

    Well, what to say more, this is not a howler, but a howler to the power of n.

    Later
    Mr Tsvetkov, if you are so good, why do not you start playing chess tournaments and make some money this way as well as prove how good you are?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  6. #51
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,386
    Quote Originally Posted by LyudmilTsvetkov View Post
    Just a brief remark, as you are obviously troll-modding.
    Actually I'm not modding you yet, but that will probably happen soon. You've had more than enough chances to justify your claims to be a 2600+ player and have failed.

    The elo you calculated is for Komodo-handicap versus humans-no-handicap.
    The real performance of Komodo and the humans can be calculated, when you take this into account.

    Well, what to say more, this is not a howler, but a howler to the power of n.
    Not my fault if you meant something completely different to what you wrote but didn't explain yourself properly.

  7. #52
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    10
    Let me add more contexts... I'm an experienced chess engine programmer. While I don't want to name myself, I'll share you who "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" is.

    This guy, Lyudmil Tsvetkov has been pissing me off for years. He had the encourage to challenge myself and all the top computer chess programmers with his "theories". He wanted us to modify our engine for his computer chess "understanding". For example, he'd sent me a request something like:

    >> Lyudmil Tsvetkov: "You are 100% wrong. You don't need engine search, they are useless. Perfect evaluations make good chess. No search. Your engine will gain 1000+ ELO if you follow me."

    That was rubbish. He was asking me to remove alpha-beta, and play chess purely by static evaluations.

    Lyudmil Tsvetkov doesn't know anything about computer chess, and he's not a strong player. He thinks he's the authority in computer chess, but if he's the authority I'd be the god. Please note he talks a lot, but he has never mentioned anything about chess engine search, because he doesn't know anything about it. Ask him about late move reduction, he'll avoid your question. Ask him to code a simple alpha-beta algorithm, he won't be able to tell you what that is.

    Lyudmil is a big fan for computer chess, he really like it. That's his hobby, passion and his "job". Computer chess is everything he has. He doesn't do anything other than computer chess. Lyudmil likes making friends with chess programmers, but we don't like him. He'd requested to add my Facebook, but I refused.
    Last edited by studentt; 29-10-2017 at 11:46 PM.

  8. #53
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    10
    Lyudmil Tsvetkov was about FIDE 1900 many years ago when he was still playing competitive chess. Now, I think he's about FIDE 1600-1700.

  9. #54
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by studentt View Post
    Let me add more contexts... I'm an experienced chess engine programmer. While I don't want to name myself, I'll share you who "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" is.

    This guy, Lyudmil Tsvetkov has been pissing me off for years. He had the encourage to challenge myself and all the top computer chess programmers with his "theories". He wanted us to modify our engine for his computer chess "understanding". For example, he'd sent me a request something like:

    >> Lyudmil Tsvetkov: "You are 100% wrong. You don't need engine search, they are useless. Perfect evaluations make good chess. No search. Your engine will gain 1000+ ELO if you follow me."

    That was rubbish. He was asking me to remove alpha-beta, and play chess purely by static evaluations.

    Lyudmil Tsvetkov doesn't know anything about computer chess, and he's not a strong player. He thinks he's the authority in computer chess, but if he's the authority I'd be the god. Please note he talks a lot, but he has never mentioned anything about chess engine search, because he doesn't know anything about it. Ask him about late move reduction, he'll avoid your question. Ask him to code a simple alpha-beta algorithm, he won't be able to tell you what that is.

    Lyudmil is a big fan for computer chess, he really like it. That's his hobby, passion and his "job". Computer chess is everything he has. He doesn't do anything other than computer chess. Lyudmil likes making friends with chess programmers, but we don't like him. He'd requested to add my Facebook, but I refused.
    Among the obvious lies about Facebook friending and requests(I did not even have Facebook account at that time), you say one very important truth:
    "He does not do anything else than computer chess."
    That should imply I am very strong then, and know my subject perfectly, right, so you are simply contradicting yourself and further rasing
    my profile.

    Thank you.
    Last edited by LyudmilTsvetkov; 30-10-2017 at 05:16 PM.

  10. #55
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by studentt View Post
    Lyudmil Tsvetkov was about FIDE 1900 many years ago when he was still playing competitive chess. Now, I think he's about FIDE 1600-1700.
    That has been already checked and links provided, so try to read the whole thread first.
    Otherwise, you sound hollow.

  11. #56
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Actually I'm not modding you yet, but that will probably happen soon. You've had more than enough chances to justify your claims to be a 2600+ player and have failed.



    Not my fault if you meant something completely different to what you wrote but didn't explain yourself properly.
    In view of the imminent threats, I will most probably have to retreat from here at some point.
    Before doing that,
    I just want to bring back to life an intriguing thread on talkchess, involving a live chess game between me and Stockfish, played in late 2014:
    http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewt...f8debe27a1a99c
    This is just to show how much analytical effort has gone into developing the right strategies to overpower the top engines.
    With each move consistently analysed for half an hour, and Stockfish using 16 threads, the amount of knowledge one gets from similar sessions is certainly tremendous.

    And that is only one of maybe more than a thousand similar analytical threads on talkchess during the last 5 years.

    Some might try to raise cheating allegations against me, but I am worth
    what I am worth.

  12. #57
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    76
    And please note, the game was LIVE, so I could not have been fixing pgns, TC, etc.

  13. #58
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Mr Tsvetkov, if you are so good, why do not you start playing chess tournaments and make some money this way as well as prove how good you are?
    Actually, a good idea.

  14. #59
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    11,600
    Quote Originally Posted by LyudmilTsvetkov View Post
    In view of the imminent threats, I will most probably have to retreat from here at some point.
    Oh don't stop now, this is going so well!
    meep meep

  15. #60
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,386
    Quote Originally Posted by LyudmilTsvetkov View Post
    "He does not do anything else than computer chess."
    That should imply I am very strong then, and know my subject perfectly, right, so you are simply contradicting yourself and further rasing
    my profile.

    Thank you.
    More nonsense. There are people who are obsessed with chess and play it all the time who are weak players. One of our posters here is always telling us about them!

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
  •