lichess.org
Donate

Stockfish ELO graph

What do you want to tell us with this?

What do you want to tell us with this?
<Comment deleted by user>

@Toscani said:

here's a summary

That is not a summary... I get the impression that you always give way too much information...
why would this user be interested in all of that engine output, or your system, or if you have zram, etc etc...

@Toscani said: > here's a summary That is not a summary... I get the impression that you always give way too much information... why would this user be interested in all of that engine output, or your system, or if you have zram, etc etc...
<Comment deleted by user>

@Toscani said:

I dislike "toxic posts". Be helpful and constructive!!
Who are you to criticize my work or post? @RwSF75

I dislike "ad hominem" arguments. By posting in a public forum, you expose yourself to criticism from everyone who participates in it.
I wasn't toxic, I was blunt. Being told that you are giving too much information is constructive criticism.

Look at what the user posted, then look at my reply, and then look at your reply.

Do you reallly think that what the user posted warranted all of that spewing of information that 99.9999% of users are not going to understand to begin with and that you claim is a "summary"?

You could've just said:

For example, I tested Stockfish on this famous forced mate in 130 by J. Halumbirek (1955): 8/p6p/7p/p6p/b2Q3p/K6p/p1r5/rk3n1n w - - 0 1
Even reaching depth 150, the engine maintained a 0.00 evaluation and failed to find the forced mate.

That would be an actual summary.

@Toscani said: > I dislike "toxic posts". Be helpful and constructive!! > Who are you to criticize my work or post? @RwSF75 I dislike "ad hominem" arguments. By posting in a public forum, you expose yourself to criticism from everyone who participates in it. I wasn't toxic, I was blunt. Being told that you are giving too much information _is_ constructive criticism. Look at what the user posted, then look at my reply, and then look at your reply. Do you reallly think that what the user posted warranted all of that spewing of information that 99.9999% of users are not going to understand to begin with and that you claim is a "summary"? You could've just said: > For example, I tested Stockfish on this famous forced mate in 130 by J. Halumbirek (1955): `8/p6p/7p/p6p/b2Q3p/K6p/p1r5/rk3n1n w - - 0 1` > Even reaching depth 150, the engine maintained a 0.00 evaluation and failed to find the forced mate. That would be an actual summary.
<Comment deleted by user>

Top engines playing at long time controls and from the standard starting position often achieve a near-100% draw rate

engines are solving chess

> Top engines playing at long time controls and from the standard starting position often achieve a near-100% draw rate engines are solving chess

@Toscani said:

I dislike "toxic posts". Be helpful and constructive!!
Who are you to criticize my work or post? @RwSF75

Hello ! Allow me to give a constructive (hopefully) feedback : I respect the amount of effort you put in providing us with extensive and argued answers, but they are too long to read from my point of view. Especially when the first line contains "Null Move Pruning and Late Move Reductions", one knows immediately that they will spend 5 minutes reading a post they won't even understand.

Regarding the original topic, webpage linked by OP says :

Rating Stockfish against a human scale, such as FIDE Elo, has become virtually impossible.

Therefore I have nothing else to contribute to the conversation at this point.

@Toscani said: > I dislike "toxic posts". Be helpful and constructive!! > Who are you to criticize my work or post? @RwSF75 Hello ! Allow me to give a constructive (hopefully) feedback : I respect the amount of effort you put in providing us with extensive and argued answers, but they are too long to read from my point of view. Especially when the first line contains "Null Move Pruning and Late Move Reductions", one knows immediately that they will spend 5 minutes reading a post they won't even understand. Regarding the original topic, webpage linked by OP says : >> Rating Stockfish against a human scale, such as FIDE Elo, has become virtually impossible. Therefore I have nothing else to contribute to the conversation at this point.

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