PDA

View Full Version : Human versus Machine



LyudmilTsvetkov
08-10-2017, 04:00 PM
Anyone interested in human-computer matches might check my new book:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1549916785/ref=sr_1_25?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507440936&sr=1-25&refinements=p_n_publication_date%3A1250226011 (paperback)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=sr_1_46?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507441224&sr=1-46&refinements=p_n_publication_date%3A1250226011 (ebook)

also available on amazon.uk(search by author and title), amazon.de, etc.

Amply commented and diagrammed games.

Seems like the first book with extensive coverage of a large number of winning games against the top engines.

Kasparov, Carlsen and Nakamura still have not written one. :)

LyudmilTsvetkov
10-10-2017, 12:40 PM
How I miss my August visit here, when it was much noisier.
I even miss Mychael Baron's quips.

One thing I wonder is why routine books like for example a book treating the Budapest Gambit in the most usual of ways, a book entitled
something like 'Tactics in the Budapest Gambit', or 'Winning Tactics in the Budapest Gambit', that actually just takes ready-made samples
out of some game database, filters the games, and then shows some very obvious tactical solutions, shallow at that, would get much more
attention than a book treating a completely new, original and unsurveyed subject, like the way a human can beat the top engines?

After all, the book about the Budapest(which, btw., might be altogether lost with perfect play) is extremely routine and unoriginal, one could change it
for any good database, while the other book treats topics that have not been treated before.

Why would anyone prefer the first book, any guess?

Has the modern world become so zombied into following routine and repetitiveness, that it would not like anything new?

In the past, people used to cherish new and unchartered waters, but not any more?

In the past, writers who offered something new were highly respected and sought after, but not now?

LyudmilTsvetkov
10-10-2017, 12:52 PM
Comparing 'The Secret of Chess' and 'Human versus Machine: How to beat Stockfish and Komodo',
I wrote the latter much quicker, the former took whole 4 months, but the interesting thing is
how notions presented in 'The Secret of Chess' are visible in the games showcased in 'Human versus Machine'.

For example, the games exhibit patterns and notions like:

- twice backward shelter pawn on f7
- pointed chains
- white and black KID structures
- fully closed sides of the board, etc., etc.

all of which could be found in 'The Secret of Chess'.

Of course, it is actually the other way round: the many thousands of games(over 50 000, to be clear)
I have played against engines and top engines and the knowledge I derived from them are reflected
in the knowledge presented on the pages of 'The Secret of Chess'.

That is how I verified that knowledge: by playing an infinite number of games against the very top,
and it seems to work.

If anyone would like to consider the games in 'Human versus Machine' as fake ones, well,
you simply don't have a point, looking at the specific positions, you will not find even a single one
that even distantly resembles any human or engine game you could find in any database.

There are simply no such games and positions, so who came up with the concept and system?
Also, checking evaluations, you will easily see the games are for real. Current Stockfish development version
still does not understand most of them.

Again, why would beating Stockfish and Komodo be less interesting than reproducing a routine game from a
public database?

studentt
10-10-2017, 01:34 PM
Please don't buy the book.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov is a very well known chess troll on talkchess.com. This retired man dream beating Stockfish/Komodo everyday, and he thinks he's the best player in the world despite never played a single rated game for the last 10 years. In reality, Lyudmil is about FIDE 1900 strength.

In Computer Chess, there're two very well known trolls - ARB and Lyudmil Tsvetkov. ARB is a video creator on how he beats Stockfish, Komodo and Houdini (he posted in Computer Chess section). Tsvetkov is similar, he speaks much more politely but he'd like to troll about his computer chess "understanding". Tsvetkov isn't a programmer, he doesn't know how to compile Stockfish, he doesn't even undertsand alpha-beta pruning.

If there was a world-chess trolling ranking, both of them would have been well over ELO 3000+.

Please don't buy the book. Don't waste of your time and money.

Example how he spammed talkchess.com: http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=723335&t=64615

MichaelBaron
10-10-2017, 02:38 PM
How I miss my August visit here, when it was much noisier.
I even miss Mychael Baron's quips.
?

I think by now, it has become transparent that you are simply delusional...so there is little point in commenting on your posts.

studentt
10-10-2017, 03:14 PM
@LyudmilTsvetkov

We'd had heated discussion on talkchess.com, but let me repeat once more. Forget about your "superiority" in computer chess. You're not an authority in chess - human chess or computer chess. You know nothing about computer chess. You're just an ordinary retired old man who likes chess.

You're not a strong chess player, in fact you can't even beat me. Forget about beating Stockfish/Komodo/Houdini.

What you need is a doctor. Stockfish/Komodo can't help you, your "FIDE 3000+" rating can't help you, your "100-0" clean record against the best computer engines can't help you. Please find a doctor near you.

studentt
10-10-2017, 03:24 PM
> http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65397

Dr Milos Stanisavljevic, who is a renowned chess engine programmer, called the book "Science Fiction & Fantasy".

studentt
11-10-2017, 09:53 AM
> http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=32312

This old man wrote: "Kasparov is weak, man, learn from people who can beat Stockfish. "

LyudmilTsvetkov
11-10-2017, 12:16 PM
Well, I don't know who you are on talkchess, maybe you can present yourself,
but chessprogramming wiki and Amazon say otherwise:

https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Lyudmil+Tsvetkov

https://www.amazon.com/Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/e/B074W689PN

Concerning my elo, in 2004 it was over 2100, my Bulgarian rating over 2200:
https://www.365chess.com/players/Ludmil_Tsvetkov (scroll down the page)

This is in 2004, so 13 years from now.

I have been candidate master for 20 years!

You can also check different Stockfish forum threads about my contributions to Stockfish, they are so many,
that I will not make a link, just check.

That was my rating when I was busy with a full-time job and have been playing very few
competitive games only on weekends.

For the past 5 years, I have been doing only chess, 24/7, so guess how much stronger am I now.

And also, read the book, to learn how the best human players in the world play against the best engines. :)

LyudmilTsvetkov
11-10-2017, 12:18 PM
still, you commented. :)

LyudmilTsvetkov
11-10-2017, 12:21 PM
@LyudmilTsvetkov

We'd had heated discussion on talkchess.com, but let me repeat once more. Forget about your "superiority" in computer chess. You're not an authority in chess - human chess or computer chess. You know nothing about computer chess. You're just an ordinary retired old man who likes chess.

You're not a strong chess player, in fact you can't even beat me. Forget about beating Stockfish/Komodo/Houdini.

What you need is a doctor. Stockfish/Komodo can't help you, your "FIDE 3000+" rating can't help you, your "100-0" clean record against the best computer engines can't help you. Please find a doctor near you.

I will just repost what I already posted:

Well, I don't know who you are on talkchess, maybe you can present yourself,
but chessprogramming wiki and Amazon say otherwise:

https://chessprogramming.wikispaces....udmil+Tsvetkov

https://www.amazon.com/Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/e/B074W689PN

Concerning my elo, in 2004 it was over 2100, my Bulgarian rating over 2200:
https://www.365chess.com/players/Ludmil_Tsvetkov (scroll down the page)

This is in 2004, so 13 years from now.

I have been candidate master for 20 years!

You can also check different Stockfish forum threads about my contributions to Stockfish, they are so many,
that I will not make a link, just check.

That was my rating when I was busy with a full-time job and have been playing very few
competitive games only on weekends.

For the past 5 years, I have been doing only chess, 24/7, so guess how much stronger am I now.

And also, read the book, to learn how the best human players in the world play against the best engines.

LyudmilTsvetkov
11-10-2017, 12:31 PM
> http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65397

Dr Milos Stanisavljevic, who is a renowned chess engine programmer, called the book "Science Fiction & Fantasy".

You even did not understand the humour side of it.
He was referring to Amazon book categories, where there are options for your book
to be listed under a category reading like

- non-fiction -> hobby and games-> board games -> chess

but also another one like

- fiction -> fantasy

And it is suited for such a listing, of course, if you have a bit of a sense of humour, as beating the top engines
might be considered fantasy.

btw., fantasy sells much more than chess. :)

I am not certain Milos is a renowned chess programmer, maybe a renowned statistician, but a renowned programmer?
btw., I hold a PhD too, in political science.

as said, unfortunately, you are just a student, of the bad ones.

LyudmilTsvetkov
11-10-2017, 12:37 PM
> http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=32312

This old man wrote: "Kasparov is weak, man, learn from people who can beat Stockfish. "

and that is indeed true, the games in my latest book show it clearly.

btw., here the link to the kindle edition on Amazon Australia, just for your convenience:
https://www.amazon.com.au/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1507689307&sr=8-1&keywords=human+versus+machine

Kevin Bonham
11-10-2017, 05:18 PM
For the past 5 years, I have been doing only chess, 24/7, so guess how much stronger am I now.

It would be better if we didn't have to guess because you had demonstrated your strength under controlled conditions, either against humans or against computers.

Since you say you are doing chess full time, obviously you have time to play in tournaments if you want to. Or you could play a match against an engine under controlled supervised conditions and show that you can beat engines.

On this forum we have the following rule:


* Impersonation of other users or of Australian chess personalities generally, including via PM, is not permitted. Multiple accounts for a single poster may be permitted, or not, at our discretion. We will frequently ban anonymous accounts that are suspected of being operated by banned users, any account that misrepresents the nature of the person operating it (eg adult posters pretending to be juniors) and any account employing a proxy IP.

(my bolding for emphasis)

My concern is that you may be misrepresenting yourself as a stronger player than you are, and that this is concerning if you are doing so while trying to use this forum to sell products. If you do have a PhD in political science you would surely be aware of the idea that empirical claims should be testable against evidence.

If you believe your current playing strength is much higher than your rating then please present reliable evidence of this of a sort that we don't have to pay for.

(Dr) Kevin Bonham
admin/moderator, chesschat.org

LyudmilTsvetkov
12-10-2017, 11:16 AM
It would be better if we didn't have to guess because you had demonstrated your strength under controlled conditions, either against humans or against computers.

Since you say you are doing chess full time, obviously you have time to play in tournaments if you want to. Or you could play a match against an engine under controlled supervised conditions and show that you can beat engines.

On this forum we have the following rule:


* Impersonation of other users or of Australian chess personalities generally, including via PM, is not permitted. Multiple accounts for a single poster may be permitted, or not, at our discretion. We will frequently ban anonymous accounts that are suspected of being operated by banned users, any account that misrepresents the nature of the person operating it (eg adult posters pretending to be juniors) and any account employing a proxy IP.

(my bolding for emphasis)

My concern is that you may be misrepresenting yourself as a stronger player than you are, and that this is concerning if you are doing so while trying to use this forum to sell products. If you do have a PhD in political science you would surely be aware of the idea that empirical claims should be testable against evidence.

If you believe your current playing strength is much higher than your rating then please present reliable evidence of this of a sort that we don't have to pay for.

(Dr) Kevin Bonham
admin/moderator, chesschat.org

Dear Mr. Bonham,

so, in what kind am I misrepresenting myself?

I posted different links from where it is clear who I am, how could this possibly be a misrepresentation?

Please, don't get excited about me trying to sell Australians my (fake?) products. So far, for more than 2 months,
I don't have a single buyer from Australia, so the chastity of the Australian customer is more or less safeguarded. :) :)

I don't want to sell anything to you, actually, it is the other way round: my books are much worthier than the ads time
and wording I have been spending on them.

Also, the last 5 years I did not get paid by anyone, I contributed an awful lot on talkchess: without my messages there,
Stockfish would never have been of its current strength, but also some of the commercial engines.

So you probably understand how unpleasant it is when you contribute something, and instead get scolded.

Concerning what I have done and what I have not done in the past, and how much I misrepresent myself,
please ask top engine authors about their opinion on me: ask Marco Costalba, ask Mark Lefler.

And now I quote Mark Lefler, the author of Komodo 1 to 1, upon getting a copy of the Secret of Chess:
'Great book! In the first 30 pages I skimmed, I found 10 ideas to try implementing in Komodo. Great stuff.'

Whatever.

I am not dependent on this forum for publicity of any kind, so am not too much excited.

I don't like the tone, though, I would have preferred a much more substantial discussion,
for example, in what way it would be possible to overwhelm top engines, concrete strategies,
move sequences in the opening, etc.

This would make the thread a real thread.

LyudmilTsvetkov
12-10-2017, 11:25 AM
Maybe, to add a little substance to the discussion, here a very fine and easily verifyable way to get an
opening advantage against Stockfish:
1.e4 human playing white, e4 is not a bad first move
e6 Stockfish sometimes picks the French on e4
2. d3 the move Fischer frequently played, eyeing a King's Indian Attack
d5 well, this is simply best here
3. Nc3
d4(?!) Stockfish here will invariably play d4, gaining some space on the queen side,
but that closes the game in the center and strengthens white chances on the king side
4. Ne2, then white plays g3, Bg2 and f4, getting quite some advantage by force.

That is all easily verifyable: you can play a game against Stockfish, get this line, get an advantage
and maybe even win.

What do you think of this line?

Maybe someone could share their way of trying to get an opening advantage against the top engines.

studentt
12-10-2017, 01:08 PM
Lyudmil Tsvetkov and ARB are the two greatest computer chess spammers ever. They've been doing it for years, at least since I started engine programming 5 years ago. All serious chess engine programmers know that. We generally don't respond to their comments. I post here because I don't want anybody here waste money on his new and useless book.

This guy is a fraud, he's not a programmer himself and he doesn't even understand alpha-beta. He's been consistently annoying us for writing new Stockfish patches for him. Nowadays, I don't respond to his emails anymore - I delete his emails whenever I see "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" in the sender field. He offered me a copy of his book: "The Secret of Chess", I deleted the message immediately.

There was a discussion whether "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" is actually "ARB". Whenever ARB was active on YouTube (e.g. making stupid videos beating Stockfish), "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" was always silent. In fact, they had never posted messages to computer chess forum together - never on the same thread and never on the same topic. It works like that: "ARB" would make some new videos on beating Stockfish, bragged about them, then suddenly went silent. Soon after, "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" would come to the stage, also bragged about beating Stockfish. Once Lyudmil Tsvetkov "completed" his mission and went offline, ARB would soon jump back with his new videos. This is a cycle that never ends.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov and ARB have never overlapped in their "works". Not even once.

Look at the "Computer Chess Forum". ARB last posted on 25-09-17, Lyudmil Tsvetkov was inactive around that time. It's middle Oct now, ARB is not doing anything but Lyudmil Tsvetkov is back with his new books.

I believe "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" is ARB. This old man has created two identities for himself, two very different personality for conquering the best chess engines in the world.

Mental disorders.

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2017, 06:24 PM
Dear Mr.[sic] Bonham,

so, in what kind am I misrepresenting myself?

You claimed on another thread "I am a candidate master with way above average grandmaster strength, maybe at least 2600 elo, lowest possible estimate."

Unless you are actually 2600 ELO strength this is a misrepresentation.
You've provided no evidence you are 2600 strength. Even if you from time to time defeat computers, that does not prove you would perform at 2600 strength against humans over the board.


I don't like the tone, though, I would have preferred a much more substantial discussion,
for example, in what way it would be possible to overwhelm top engines, concrete strategies,
move sequences in the opening, etc.

This would make the thread a real thread.

Well if you want that you should post some examples of you doing so - preferably under controlled conditions but anything will do - instead of hiding them behind a paywall. At the moment there's nothing to discuss unless somebody wants to spend money first.

LyudmilTsvetkov
13-10-2017, 09:51 AM
Lyudmil Tsvetkov and ARB are the two greatest computer chess spammers ever. They've been doing it for years, at least since I started engine programming 5 years ago. All serious chess engine programmers know that. We generally don't respond to their comments. I post here because I don't want anybody here waste money on his new and useless book.

This guy is a fraud, he's not a programmer himself and he doesn't even understand alpha-beta. He's been consistently annoying us for writing new Stockfish patches for him. Nowadays, I don't respond to his emails anymore - I delete his emails whenever I see "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" in the sender field. He offered me a copy of his book: "The Secret of Chess", I deleted the message immediately.

There was a discussion whether "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" is actually "ARB". Whenever ARB was active on YouTube (e.g. making stupid videos beating Stockfish), "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" was always silent. In fact, they had never posted messages to computer chess forum together - never on the same thread and never on the same topic. It works like that: "ARB" would make some new videos on beating Stockfish, bragged about them, then suddenly went silent. Soon after, "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" would come to the stage, also bragged about beating Stockfish. Once Lyudmil Tsvetkov "completed" his mission and went offline, ARB would soon jump back with his new videos. This is a cycle that never ends.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov and ARB have never overlapped in their "works". Not even once.

Look at the "Computer Chess Forum". ARB last posted on 25-09-17, Lyudmil Tsvetkov was inactive around that time. It's middle Oct now, ARB is not doing anything but Lyudmil Tsvetkov is back with his new books.

I believe "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" is ARB. This old man has created two identities for himself, two very different personality for conquering the best chess engines in the world.

Mental disorders.

I still can not guess who you are.

Most of the things you say are pure lies.

Me and ARB the same person? I am Bulgarian, while he seems to be British.
Anyway, if you have any proof, it would be good to disclose it and finally decide
if Lyudmil Tsvetkov is ARB or ARB is Lyudmil Tsvetkov? :) :)

I have great fun with your posts, obviously, you are just starting to learn...

LyudmilTsvetkov
13-10-2017, 10:14 AM
You claimed on another thread "I am a candidate master with way above average grandmaster strength, maybe at least 2600 elo, lowest possible estimate."

Unless you are actually 2600 ELO strength this is a misrepresentation.
You've provided no evidence you are 2600 strength. Even if you from time to time defeat computers, that does not prove you would perform at 2600 strength against humans over the board.



Well if you want that you should post some examples of you doing so - preferably under controlled conditions but anything will do - instead of hiding them behind a paywall. At the moment there's nothing to discuss unless somebody wants to spend money first.

What is so difficult to understand: I am CM officially, but '2600+ strength' factually.

The modern world is full with empty titles and those mostly mean nothing.
For example, most modern literature Nobel Prize winners have actually written extremely mediocre
works, and their contribution to literature is literally=0.

Who needs all that?

I hate empty things. I prefer to be non-titled, but strong, rather than titled and mediocre.

Concerning me posting some games, there are 100+ such posts on talkchess, the last one a handicap game I played against
Stockfish 8, knight for missing c7 pawn, the same handicap that Nakamura quickly lost to Komodo:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=731656&t=65168

Just browse the forum more carefully.

I would have posted here too, but the replay software is not ideal.

Btw., I don't know why should I explain to a person who needs 410 games to score a draw against Stockfish? :) :)

I am able to draw every single game.

studentt
13-10-2017, 01:29 PM
He's just upgraded from "2600" to "2800" on:

> http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65397&start=10

Quote: I don't know when people on this forum and elsewhere will finally learn that my objective current chess strength, especially under quiet conditions, is at least 2800?

More:

that 2100+ estimate(actually 2200+) dates back from 2004-2006, and during that period I had a couple of 2400 performances.
I simply played too few rated games during that period, mostly at the weekends or in the evening, after a strenuous working day. Lack of concentration and fatigue play an enormous role in deciding a chess game.

in the course of 12 years, I have added too much chess strength, I am even afraid to think of how large that quantity is nowadays. Matter of fact is that in the last 5 years I have played and analysed at least 3 times more games than during my entire chess training span before that.

I don't know what are you talking me drawing 1 out of 100 against Stockfish. Out of 100, I am usually drawing at least 67.

He's improved about 200 FIDE rating point in less than a day!!! Forget about Anton, ARB is our future!

ARB (or Lyudmil Tsvetkov). When do you think you'll make the Houdini 6 videos? We need FIDE 2800+ scum**g like you to guard our humanity. It's time to move on from Stockfish.

studentt
13-10-2017, 02:04 PM
Lyudmil Tsvetkov likes playing tricks on innocent chess players. In the other thread "The Secret of Chess", even GM Max.W failed into his trap. I was too soft last time, and didn't bother to clarify the situation. But no next time.

Let's protect the Australian chess community, don't buy anything from him, ever.

MichaelBaron
13-10-2017, 04:24 PM
What is so difficult to understand: I am CM officially, but '2600+ strength' factually.

T

LOL...This is clearly a ''clinical'' case :)

onionlord77
13-10-2017, 04:29 PM
3555

Kevin Bonham
13-10-2017, 08:13 PM
What is so difficult to understand: I am CM officially, but '2600+ strength' factually.

I am well aware that a title does not necessarily convey playing strength.


The modern world is full with empty titles and those mostly mean nothing.

You mentioned that you are a Candidate Master. In our region we create dozens of those every Zonal. So I agree that such a title is empty as proof of high playing strength. That is why we have ratings as a more objective indicator of playing strength. Oh but you don't play rated chess, so how is your playing strength to be tested?


Concerning me posting some games, there are 100+ such posts on talkchess, the last one a handicap game I played against
Stockfish 8, knight for missing c7 pawn, the same handicap that Nakamura quickly lost to Komodo:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=731656&t=65168

That is hardly convincing evidence that you are a very strong player without any evidence as to the number of attempts it took you to win a game which you started knight for pawn up. It also appears that you played the game at a very fast time limit which makes any comparison with Nakamura's game invalid.


I am able to draw every single game.

Yes well, I wrestle tigers with my bare hands, four at a time, and then feed them to crocodiles afterwards. Anyone can make up anything but unless you can prove it under controlled conditions where it can be seen that you are not using a computer yourself then no-one need believe a word you say.

The replay software here is fine:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d4 d6 5.d5 Nb8 6.Bd3 Nf6 7.0-0 0-0 8.c3 Ne8 9.Re1 f5 10.Qc2 f4 11.h3 g5 12.Bc4 Kh8 13.Nh2 h5 14.a4 g4 15.hxg4 hxg4 16.g3 Bg5 17.gxf4 Bxf4 18.Bxf4 Rxf4 19.Kg2 Nf6 20.Re3 Nbd7 21.Rh1 Kg7 22.Nf1 Nf8 23.Ng3 Ng6 24.Kg1 Bd7 25.Bb5 Ne7 26.Qc1 Bxb5 27.axb5 Qb6 28.c4 Qd4 29.Ne2 Qc5 30.Nxf4 exf4 31.Re2 Ng6 32.b3 Re8 33.e5 Rxe5 34.Rxe5 dxe5 35.b4 Qd4 36.Qe1 Ne4 37.b6 axb6 38.Kf1 Nd2+ 0-1

Andrew Hardegen
13-10-2017, 09:28 PM
I have been candidate master for 20 years!

According to Wikipedia, the Candidate Master title was only introduced in 2002.

Kevin Bonham
13-10-2017, 09:32 PM
According to Wikipedia, the Candidate Master title was only introduced in 2002.

Some countries had national Candidate Master titles.

Kevin Bonham
13-10-2017, 09:33 PM
I believe "Lyudmil Tsvetkov" is ARB.

The IP evidence available to us suggests otherwise, unless that person is extremely determined about disguising their identity.

LyudmilTsvetkov
14-10-2017, 05:01 PM
He's improved about 200 FIDE rating point in less than a day!!! Forget about Anton, ARB is our future!

ARB (or Lyudmil Tsvetkov). When do you think you'll make the Houdini 6 videos? We need FIDE 2800+ scum**g like you to guard our humanity. It's time to move on from Stockfish.

:) :) Quite possible.

As soon as Mr. Houdart presents me with a free copy, I might play some games.
Otherwise, I don't intend to buy an engine that more or less plays and understands chess on the level
of the other 2 leading programs, Stockfish and Komodo, that is, weak.

I am sufficiently well aware of Stockfish and Komodo play and the strength difference between version updates
(=very small), to buy a Houdini copy only because I need to prove something to someone.

LyudmilTsvetkov
14-10-2017, 05:02 PM
3555

I would say more stupid than trolling. :)

I hate lies much more than I hate stupidity.

LyudmilTsvetkov
14-10-2017, 05:05 PM
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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
14-10-2017, 05:25 PM
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)

LyudmilTsvetkov
27-10-2017, 04:24 PM
Part II of the book is out:

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B076T7BVX5/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1509083087&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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
27-10-2017, 04:28 PM
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!

onionlord77
27-10-2017, 07:05 PM
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.

Kevin Bonham
27-10-2017, 08:59 PM
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.

MichaelBaron
27-10-2017, 09:26 PM
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 :)

LyudmilTsvetkov
27-10-2017, 09:39 PM
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/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=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

LyudmilTsvetkov
27-10-2017, 09:43 PM
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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
27-10-2017, 09:45 PM
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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
27-10-2017, 10:09 PM
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.

Kevin Bonham
27-10-2017, 10:20 PM
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/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
28-10-2017, 11:19 AM
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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
28-10-2017, 11:32 AM
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/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=682136&t=60954

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2017, 11:38 AM
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.

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2017, 01:16 PM
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.)

LyudmilTsvetkov
28-10-2017, 06:02 PM
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.

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2017, 06:32 PM
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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
29-10-2017, 01:44 PM
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

MichaelBaron
29-10-2017, 04:11 PM
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?

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2017, 10:29 PM
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.

studentt
29-10-2017, 11:38 PM
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.

studentt
30-10-2017, 10:48 AM
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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
30-10-2017, 05:12 PM
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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
30-10-2017, 05:18 PM
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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
30-10-2017, 05:23 PM
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/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=598874&t=54487&sid=863741b0621363b365f8debe27a1a99c
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.

LyudmilTsvetkov
30-10-2017, 05:26 PM
And please note, the game was LIVE, so I could not have been fixing pgns, TC, etc.

LyudmilTsvetkov
30-10-2017, 05:27 PM
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.

Desmond
30-10-2017, 07:12 PM
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!

Kevin Bonham
30-10-2017, 10:39 PM
"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!

LyudmilTsvetkov
31-10-2017, 03:19 PM
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!

Those are people who are unwillingly pushing thousands of bullet wood games, I am willingly
mostly analysing games and positions at much slower pace(apart from the games I play, much less).

Max Illingworth
01-11-2017, 09:29 AM
I can't help but be reminded of the Sniper. (http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1263559265)

LyudmilTsvetkov
01-11-2017, 04:41 PM
I am so happy, I just read a review on this book on Rybka forum by MarshallArts:

The exhortation not to buy his books is very mean-spirited and basically unfounded. I can understand if someone does not like
the playing conditions which these games were conducted under, but the criticism is going too far.

His books are quite good actually. I only skimmed through the Secret of Chess, but the newer human vs machine game books seem
packed with good and crisp explanations that can help elevate a reader's play even against other human players. The games themselves
are H vs M masterpieces, regardless of whatever handicaps were used by the author. A very high level understanding of chess transpires
when looking at these well commented games. I was positively surprised by the quality of these games and their annotations.


http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=32312

studentt
17-11-2017, 07:17 AM
This book failed:

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=64776&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=100

Apparently, chess programmers (not just me!) don't believe Lyudmil Tsvetkov. If chess programmers don't buy the book, I don't see why the general public would like it.


3 months on, I have to ascertain there is not much feedback/interest in my book. I see 3 possible causes for this:

1.) The book is bad
2.) People can't understand it
3.) The book is written in high style/high knowledge style, different from traditional conceptions, and most people prefer low knowledge/routine instead of high knowledge

I think it's (1) and (4) - the book is full of unproven claims.

LyudmilTsvetkov
24-11-2017, 04:03 PM
Part III is out: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077PN5QT8/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511501584&sr=1-8

This will be the last part of the series, for the time being.

I would not like that this turns into a boring book,
the purpose has never been to publish as many games as possible,
but just to demonstrate the possibility to win against the top engines,
and cover the most common winning options.

I can play more games in the future, so there might be 4th part, but this will be only in a couple of years, when much stronger engines appear.
It does not make sense to repeat one and the same stuff. When much stronger engines appear, and people say again, well, it might have been
possible to beat the tops couple of years ago, that crazy guy Lyudmil used to do it, but not now anymore, then I will play some games to
renew my collection.

I would like to thank all those on this forum, who, by chance or willingly, have bought different of my books. Thanks a lot! You have helped me to at least keep part of my face and hope in what I am doing.

The third part features handicap wins. All the credit goes to Larry Kaufman(thanks, Larry, for all those Komodo handicap matches), as, whenever Komodo would play a match against some human, I would try my hand with
precisely the same imbalance against the tops.
It proved that handicap games are a great fun, one of the most interesting things in chess, and also are very helpful to your tactical training, for the reason that materially imbalanced positions increase the necessity for more calculations.

I would also like to thank the mods here for their patience and understanding.

LyudmilTsvetkov
24-11-2017, 07:44 PM
This book failed:

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=64776&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=100

Apparently, chess programmers (not just me!) don't believe Lyudmil Tsvetkov. If chess programmers don't buy the book, I don't see why the general public would like it.



I think it's (1) and (4) - the book is full of unproven claims.

Actually, it is 2 and 3, there is not the slightest doubt about that.
Your 4 1-star reviews might have plunged my books sales, but Amazon deleted your last one,
I hope they will take further measures too.

If you are a student, don't be that agressive and try to learn something instead.

Btw., as said, I know who you are on talkchess, don't make me disclose this very painful truth for you.

MichaelBaron
26-11-2017, 03:03 PM
Btw., as said, I know who you are on talkchess, don't make me disclose this very painful truth for you.

I also think your claims based on pre-cooked games are rubbish. However, do feel free to disclose that Michael Baron's real name is..Michael Baron :)

LyudmilTsvetkov
26-11-2017, 03:28 PM
I also think your claims based on pre-cooked games are rubbish. However, do feel free to disclose that Michael Baron's real name is..Michael Baron :)
That is a very very different thing.
You have the full right to your opinion(especially when you are able to support it, which you are not).
That guy, guy, however, posted 4(!) 1-star reviews for all my books in the matter of hours, claiming that:
- there are spelling mistakes everywhere, when Amazon software shows none
- illegal positions everywhere, when there are none, etc.

And he gets some helpful votes, you know, people have not read the book, after all.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but should not lie, especially 4 times in a row.

There is something more, your real name and user name match, while his are different.

And lastly, yesterday I had been browsing the games of the Deep Blue - Kasparov match, and, guess what:
I was astounded to realise how much superior the games presented in my books are, chess evolves after all, both at the human
and engine level.

If I had to be fully objective, it is me who deserves all the hype surrounding Kasparov's recent book
'Deep thinking', for 'Human versus Machine', but nevermind.

Later

LyudmilTsvetkov
30-11-2017, 06:11 PM
One thing I forgot to mention is games in all 3 parts have been played with ponder=on, so this somewhat decreases the time difference, but I guess, especially for closed positions, the effect would be rather small, as engines would be pondering mostly the wrong moves.

I have always wondered what the effect of ponder on game play is, I presume rather insignificant.

LyudmilTsvetkov
29-12-2017, 06:46 PM
I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.

After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078NSTR3K/ref=s9_acsd_newrz_hd_bw_b194_c_x_6_w?pf_rd_m=ATVPD KIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-5&pf_rd_r=JNC827XRAWWDGW4HYCNC&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=17355592-3237-51ea-a6a2-f95fdeea28ea&pf_rd_i=4406

While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.

Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.

So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.

LyudmilTsvetkov
02-01-2018, 05:54 PM
Here one puzzle from the positional suite:

r4rk1/4bppp/pqbp1n2/1p2pPB1/4P3/1BNQ4/PPP3PP/R4R1K w - - 0 15

(I can't find the fen option here to put a diagram, sorry, if someone could give me a hint how to do it)

The point is to find 15. Bf6!(which SF finds, or maybe first a4 b4, which does not change the overall character of the position and assessment) Bf6, and then 16. Bd5!, which is the real key move, and which SF fails to see. It prefers 16. Nd5? instead, which after 16...Bd5 17. Bd5 should only lead to a draw in an ending with opposite colour bishops.

Any engine seeing that sequence?
Or any human, for that matter?

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2018, 06:00 PM
Here one puzzle from the positional suite:

r4rk1/4bppp/pqbp1n2/1p2pPB1/4P3/1BNQ4/PPP3PP/R4R1K w - - 0 15

(I can't find the fen option here to put a diagram, sorry, if someone could give me a hint how to do it)


For FEN without moves just put {fen} at the start of the FEN string and {/fen} at the end, but use square brackets instead of curly.

r4rk1/4bppp/pqbp1n2/1p2pPB1/4P3/1BNQ4/PPP3PP/R4R1K w - - 0 15

Click quote to see how I've done it.

For FEN with moves use {pgn=(fen string)}insert moves here{/pgn} but again with square brackets instead of curly. That one is tricky to get right.

Desmond
02-01-2018, 08:48 PM
Here one puzzle from the positional suite:

r4rk1/4bppp/pqbp1n2/1p2pPB1/4P3/1BNQ4/PPP3PP/R4R1K w - - 0 15

(I can't find the fen option here to put a diagram, sorry, if someone could give me a hint how to do it)

The point is to find 15. Bf6!(which SF finds, or maybe first a4 b4, which does not change the overall character of the position and assessment) Bf6, and then 16. Bd5!, which is the real key move, and which SF fails to see. It prefers 16. Nd5? instead, which after 16...Bd5 17. Bd5 should only lead to a draw in an ending with opposite colour bishops.

Any engine seeing that sequence?
Or any human, for that matter?

Um yeah Bxf6 and Bd5 followed by basking in the glory of my knight was my first thought, I'm not very good though.

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2018, 10:21 PM
One question here is how does one establish that the positional move chosen by Fischer was actually the best move in the position? Here is the original game:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O. Bb7 9.f4. Nc6 10.Nxc6 Bxc6 11.f5 e5 12.Qd3 Be7 13.Bg5 Qb6+ 14.Kh1 O-O 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Bd5 Rac8 17.Bxc6 Rxc6 18.Rad1 Rfc8 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.c3 Be7 21.Ra1 f6 22.a4 Rb8 23.Nxe7+ 1-0

From move 17 onwards, almost every black move is dubious or bad so the game proves nothing about the strength of the plan. Is it so easy for white to win after 17...Qxc6 which makes it harder for white to quickly occupy d5?

Also, the superiority of engines isn't that they are always positionally brilliant. It's that they don't make short-range tactical errors.

LyudmilTsvetkov
07-01-2018, 09:32 PM
For FEN without moves just put {fen} at the start of the FEN string and {/fen} at the end, but use square brackets instead of curly.

r4rk1/4bppp/pqbp1n2/1p2pPB1/4P3/1BNQ4/PPP3PP/R4R1K w - - 0 15

Click quote to see how I've done it.

For FEN with moves use {pgn=(fen string)}insert moves here{/pgn} but again with square brackets instead of curly. That one is tricky to get right.

Thanks Kevin.

For the fen, I am sure I will do it next time, but can you please explain a bit more about posting pgns/full games?
How do I post a full game?

LyudmilTsvetkov
07-01-2018, 09:33 PM
Um yeah Bxf6 and Bd5 followed by basking in the glory of my knight was my first thought, I'm not very good though.

Not very good, but still picking the Fischer plan. :)

LyudmilTsvetkov
07-01-2018, 09:44 PM
One question here is how does one establish that the positional move chosen by Fischer was actually the best move in the position? Here is the original game:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 b5 8.O-O. Bb7 9.f4. Nc6 10.Nxc6 Bxc6 11.f5 e5 12.Qd3 Be7 13.Bg5 Qb6+ 14.Kh1 O-O 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Bd5 Rac8 17.Bxc6 Rxc6 18.Rad1 Rfc8 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.c3 Be7 21.Ra1 f6 22.a4 Rb8 23.Nxe7+ 1-0

From move 17 onwards, almost every black move is dubious or bad so the game proves nothing about the strength of the plan. Is it so easy for white to win after 17...Qxc6 which makes it harder for white to quickly occupy d5?

Also, the superiority of engines isn't that they are always positionally brilliant. It's that they don't make short-range tactical errors.

I have my methods:
- trusting my intuition
- checking after that with SF

If the 2 are in agreement, usually the specific conlcusion will be valid in 90% of cases.

I am checking different lines with SF, until I get certain about my conclusions.
Sometimes, this is difficult. So far, on Talkchess forum with big hardware, 32/64 cores, SF finds the Bf6 and then Bd5 plan ONLY at depth 46 after
close to a full hour analysis.
100cps vs 80cps for Nd5. Not very convincing, but big hardware and SF also prove Fischer was correct.

One more:
r1b2rk1/2q2ppp/p2p1b2/4pP2/4P3/1Pp1BQ2/1PP1N2P/R4RK1 w - - 0 18

Find the ONLY winning move.
18. Nc3 draws
18. bc3! wins, and then binding the d5 square with c3-c4

How easy you/your engines are able to find this?
Btw., this only confirms my theory of central binds from 'The Secret of Chess'.

LyudmilTsvetkov
07-01-2018, 09:46 PM
Here one review for 'Human versus Machine', if anyone is interested:
https://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/human-versus-machine.html

LyudmilTsvetkov
16-03-2018, 10:03 PM
Currently, the 1st part is just 1 dollar: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
You can have the 3 for 7!
This will be just a limited offer, so don't miss it.
'The Secret of Chess' is also much cheaper.
Btw., anyone who has purchased the paperback of 'The Secret of Chess', can now download the ebook for free.

LyudmilTsvetkov
17-04-2018, 05:32 PM
Here is an interesting article on the book and anti-computer chess in general with 5 replayable games: https://glarean-magazin.ch/2018/04/14/anti-computerschach-human-vs-machine-report-carstens-tsvetkov/
In the lower left corner, there is a 'Translate' button, you can certainly read the English translation from German,
what you will understand is another matter.
In any case, the multitude of replayable games are interesting.

littlesprout85
10-07-2018, 03:31 AM
Seems to sprout that there is somethang that is bringing on da Automation Revolution thats coming down da pike at an alarming rate these days...Think its was all Started From Chess (man -vs - computer) back in da 70's... first it was all big slow room size industrial computers that could do math faster than any man.. then it all goes into Man vs Big Blue in a chess match.... AUGH !!!! MAke this Revolution stop now..Somebody plz Take out BIG BLUE !!!

LyudmilTsvetkov
10-08-2018, 08:21 PM
Just to inform people that anyone with Kindle Unlimited can read for free
"Human versus Machine": https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Maybe someone will be interested.

LyudmilTsvetkov
13-08-2018, 07:48 PM
The whole book is now available to download free as part of a promotion: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1534152975&sr=1-1&keywords=human+versus+machine
Don't miss your chance.