The best way to use the AI is for endgame practice. This is why playing it at blitz and bullet, even on the lowest levels is, even in my opinion as someone who is pro-AI, is somewhere between a complete waste of time and a really tough challenge. Even playing at bullet 1+0 or 1+1, the AI is going to have enough time to make 100 moves of G/120 quality if it needs to, whilst you frantically try and rely on pattern recognition and not blundering. Most humans are not capable of doing that. It plays at the same strength in a 3+2 blitz game and a G/120 classical game. This means the AI will be gaining thinking time all the way through the game where as you will be losing it. Something worth considering is that the AI thinking time on any difficulty level is less than the increment we use in many of our time controls, which is typically 2 or 3 seconds. Against a human that 20 seconds is going to be another 2 hours, meaning I have to set aside 4 hours for a game, which isn't always possible. A G/120 game, can't take more than 2 hours, because at the end of the 2 hours, the Stockfish AI will have been thinking for less than 20 seconds, even on an 80+ move game. That may sound odd, but if like me your chess time is limited, it helps not having to wait for my opponent to make a move. It means you'll get used to always playing under time pressure, and it effectively reduces the length of the game by 50% compared with playing another human being. At Level 1 it's about 0.4 seconds, but a lot of the time moves will be registered as 0 seconds, because (I'm guessing) it's taking somewhere less than 0.01 seconds to think. On Level 8, the longest the AI thinks per move is about 1.5 seconds. There was a guy who beat Level 8 once and he got a trophy for it (something like that anyway) but he lost to it about 60 or 70 times before he eventually beat it, so despite winning that trophy, he's by no means better than it. How do you progress up the Levels? I would say fair criteria for progressing to the next level is being able to beat it in 10 CONSECUTIVE games, alternating between playing as the White pieces and Black pieces each game. In other words, you need to get better at spotting less obvious tactical and positional errors in order to beat it. The mistakes made by Level 5 or Level 6 might not be noticed by a human beginner who can detect the mistakes that Level 1 and Level 2 will make. Yes, it may be a little unrealistic, but when the piece is dropped or left hanging, the weaker player needs to be to able to recognise this weakness and capitalise on it.Īs you progress up the levels, the mistakes become less frequent and less obvious. The lower Levels play perfectly good chess for a weaker player and then randomly drops a piece. Please continue to give us your feedback and suggestions on how we can help make /r/chess better for everyone. Use the message the moderators link if your posts or comments don't appear, or for help with any administrative matters. Twitter/Facebook posts must contain a direct link to the tweet/post, and include the author's nameĬhess Spoiler format for problem answers etc., Public Moderator Logs (broken by API changes)ĭon’t engage in abusive, discriminatory, or bigoted behavior.ĭon't ask for advice about ongoing games.ĭo not use /r/chess exclusively to promote your own content. Instructions for /r/chess PGN addon ( Chrome, Firefox) Definitely not." Pointedly, the guy making the claim was later convicted of fraud.News Puzzles Games Strategy Twitch Other Resources As ChessBase put it, "Believe it or not? Not, of course. Here's an example of a claimed win from 2011, at a time when computers were already unbeatable by humans. If they actually manage to win, it'll be big news. You can probably offer them odds of pawn and move and they'll still lose (they won't even draw). If these people insist they can still beat Stockfish 11 unaided, challenge them to prove it live. Here's a recent game Stockfish lost to Leela Chess Zero. You will need help from another engine to win. "Slow computer" isn't good enough - Stockfish 11 running on 1999 hardware would still have handily beaten Kasparov. Anyone who claims to have done so is either lying or stacked the deck super heavily in their favor (e.g., by having Stockfish search only to depth 2). It's absolutely beatable, but not by an unassisted human.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |