lichess.org
Donate

Is it possible to beat the computer?

@imapinger
Yup, you have been banned as a cheater. It's easy to win against stockfish level 7 or 8 if you use an engine and not your mind, imapinger!

I don't see any reason why people should cheat, it's just very disrespectful to your opponents and you don't even improve your skill, as the engine does everything for you :(
@rohangupta4398:
You are probably right but that is nothing I care about. ;-) Remember I took less than 2 minutes for 151 moves.

Anti-engine-chess isn't about calculating, you never have a chance to beat an engine by calculating because it calculates always better. It is necessary to play by instinct, closing the position is top priority and then hope the best.

I originally intended to flag the engine in the endgame (thats why 3+0) but Stockfish seems to be adjusted that it never thinks more than 1 second per move - mission impossible.
One day humans will beat the best computers once more. Because mathematics in her core is creative. Humans will untap their creative potential and will take their rightful place above the machines.

This comment will be found by internet archeologists and I will be deemed a great chess prophet.
Funny games here!

@CrushKing: Hyperbullet is brutal! Stockfish level 1 plays so bad but there is no time to take all the pieces... I tried to mate a few times but failed. Stockfish level 8 thinks a bit longer in the beginning, after a couple of zeros my confidence is back: lichess.org/t0WKRR0d5czW

It seems Stockfish is only down-regulated by the thinking time per move. @seanysean played a very long time control and the level 7 engine only thought 0.5s max, level 8 is 1s max.
Yeah @Mollus I don't think I could beat lvl 7 again unless I was a lot stronger. Stockfish improves faster than I can :\
Finally mated Stockfish level 1, but needed more tries than for level 8. But that's not really engine-chess but only a test if you can move fast: lichess.org/moyeLly23Ebs

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.