- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Training Game #23 with Turbo Eval

#2

Could you at least link to the blog where you explain what this 'turbo eval' is?

Could you at least link to the blog where you explain what this 'turbo eval' is?
#3

Nice win, shows the value of a plan vs just moving stuff around. I have played the various bots quite a bit and much prefer lichess fairy-stockfish (which I know you've played a lot), the chess.com engines seem to be configured to occasionally play ridiculous blunders and the claimed ratings are fanciful at best.

Nice win, shows the value of a plan vs just moving stuff around. I have played the various bots quite a bit and much prefer lichess fairy-stockfish (which I know you've played a lot), the chess.com engines seem to be configured to occasionally play ridiculous blunders and the claimed ratings are fanciful at best.
#4
<Comment deleted by user>
#5

I am sorry that you feel as if I have cheated. I can assure you that I have not. However, I understand that when people are convinced of one thing, a simple sentence cannot change their mind unless they are looking to change their mind. Unfortunately, it would be difficult for me to prove that I haven't cheated unless you are open to listening to the stats of the game. The specs are below if you would be so kind as to read:
I spent nearly an hour thinking through this game so I had plenty of time to really narrow down my moves to those that are very strong. It was obviously not a perfect attack or a perfect game in any right, as I only had 96% accuracy, not 98-100%, which would be what you should expect from Stockfish 17. To address your statement about "no human in the world can crush 2700 elo computer like in this game", I would point towards Hikaru Nakamura playing some of the even stronger chess bots, where he is able to win. Also, the idea that nobody can play chess like a computer is downright false. It is improbable yes, but the goal of the Club of Believers was to create thought processes that allow us to grow massively as players and put up against the computers. Anybody can play a perfect game, it just comes down to how experienced they are, and how much they are willing to put in the effort.

Again, I am sorry if you feel cheated against by so many people that you assume that I am cheating despite my best efforts to show that I am not. Have a good rest of your day.

I am sorry that you feel as if I have cheated. I can assure you that I have not. However, I understand that when people are convinced of one thing, a simple sentence cannot change their mind unless they are looking to change their mind. Unfortunately, it would be difficult for me to prove that I haven't cheated unless you are open to listening to the stats of the game. The specs are below if you would be so kind as to read: I spent nearly an hour thinking through this game so I had plenty of time to really narrow down my moves to those that are very strong. It was obviously not a perfect attack or a perfect game in any right, as I only had 96% accuracy, not 98-100%, which would be what you should expect from Stockfish 17. To address your statement about "no human in the world can crush 2700 elo computer like in this game", I would point towards Hikaru Nakamura playing some of the even stronger chess bots, where he is able to win. Also, the idea that nobody can play chess like a computer is downright false. It is improbable yes, but the goal of the Club of Believers was to create thought processes that allow us to grow massively as players and put up against the computers. Anybody can play a perfect game, it just comes down to how experienced they are, and how much they are willing to put in the effort. Again, I am sorry if you feel cheated against by so many people that you assume that I am cheating despite my best efforts to show that I am not. Have a good rest of your day.
#6

@Zenchess

I have added a link to my blog detailing my thought process. I will be placing this in my other blogs as well.

@Zenchess I have added a link to my blog detailing my thought process. I will be placing this in my other blogs as well.
#7

@GEA34 said in #4:

If you use latest 3600 elo stockfish playing aganist chess.com bots so you can win easily like this game. However this is not your success. Please lets be honest no human in the world can crush 2700 elo computer like in this game. What is more scary is people believing that such a cheating is a masterpiece in chess.
I feel sad for you. Strong humans can beat computers like that. You need to focus and follow a reliable thought process while believing in your chances. Frowning upon someone honestly working towards improving their chess won't do any good for you. Criticism is different. This is called jealousy, or even more direct, hypocrisy. Please refrain from writing these kinds of stuff.

@GEA34 said in #4: > If you use latest 3600 elo stockfish playing aganist chess.com bots so you can win easily like this game. However this is not your success. Please lets be honest no human in the world can crush 2700 elo computer like in this game. What is more scary is people believing that such a cheating is a masterpiece in chess. I feel sad for you. Strong humans can beat computers like that. You need to focus and follow a reliable thought process while believing in your chances. Frowning upon someone honestly working towards improving their chess won't do any good for you. Criticism is different. This is called jealousy, or even more direct, hypocrisy. Please refrain from writing these kinds of stuff.
#8
<Comment deleted by user>
#9

The issue here is not the poster cheating (I believe they didn't). It is that chess.com cripples their engine but still assigns completely unrealistic ratings to the levels.

This is a draw I achieved agains the top level 25 komodo (3200?) and a win vs level 23 (2700?). Clearly the engine was not playing close to the claimed level:

https://www.chess.com/game/computer/184407883

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/computer/183293945

you can see from the analysis that I was not playing top engine moves at all, the opponent just played some very poor ones

The issue here is not the poster cheating (I believe they didn't). It is that chess.com cripples their engine but still assigns completely unrealistic ratings to the levels. This is a draw I achieved agains the top level 25 komodo (3200?) and a win vs level 23 (2700?). Clearly the engine was not playing close to the claimed level: https://www.chess.com/game/computer/184407883 https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/computer/183293945 you can see from the analysis that I was not playing top engine moves at all, the opponent just played some very poor ones