![]() ![]() Instead, this is a tool for developers who want to create their own games and not have to work on an algorithm from scratch, because it's not exactly easy and it takes a lot of work and dedication to match the already existing ones. This means that you cannot play chess by simply downloading Stockfish, which can be a bit of a bother. In fact, Stockfish is one of the leading algorithms in this field, and it is rated better than most grandmasters out there, which means that it's enough to put your skills to the test without doing silly mistakes in the process.Īs you might have guessed, this is merely the engine itself, not an actual game. I have no clue why this is.Stockfish Chess Engine is an open source chess engine that's designed to provide you with a strong artificial intelligence when it comes to calculating chess moves. a mate in 9, then search through a different branch and forget about the mate in 9 entirely, declaring the position to be a mate in 27. So, for a composition such as this mate in seven (composed by Vladimir Nikitin, Special Prize Shakhmaty v SSSR 1984) where Black would rather not move their pawns at all for four turns in a row and White's play is motivated entirely by defending against checks, Stockfish fails to spot the mate in seven while Popeye, a brute-force engine for checking compositions, can brute-force every possible sequence of 7 moves in under an hour depending on hardware.Īlso, I think Stockfish has this weird bug where, when searching through various branches, it might first declare the position to be e.g. When searching through two branches, Stockfish will assume that the opponent makes no move, and if the position already looks better for the opponent than anything in the other branch, Stockfish will prematurely prune the whole branch even if the position is actually zugzwang and the opponent's position is actually worse. This is mostly outside my knowledge, but as I understand it, one weakness it has is a consequence of using zero-move pruning essentially, to reduce computation time, it often assumes that the best move should always be better than not moving, which, while usually true in games, is not universally true. A more easily-answerable question might be something like "what are Stockfish's weaknesses?". We can't easily measure this because we don't yet know what "perfect" is. How close is stockfish to being "perfect"? The reason I'm looking at forced mates is because they're the only objective win/loss we have in chess aside from tablebases. But relatively simple mates like the one from my example. And I'm not talking mate in 30 in the most insane fashion. Maybe games where it was only +1.5 and one player had mate but nobody ever found out because even the engine didn't see it. This just makes me think how many forced mates Stockfish may have missed in games. Which is weird because it's basically the most logical move aside of cxd5. Re8 is for the longest time (maybe more accurately: it doesn't see a4 as a possibility in that line), even SF15 running with 4 threads on my laptop. Re8) in order to threaten mate, and then work towards getting the dark squared bishop on to a3 in order to remove the final defender of the king.īut Stockfish doesn't realize how strong the idea of 28. It's really nothing special: the crux is bringing the rook up (28. Now you may think: how complex must ideas be for Stockfish to miss them? Turns out, not always that complex. Which makes it look as if Stockfish is flawless. The problem is: we don't currently have an engine that can punish Stockfish for missing these moves. Which means that if another engine finds these types of moves sooner than Stockfish, odds are that engine can get the better of Stockfish. However, if you manually input the move, Stockfish suddenly changes its mind and realizes how strong it is. I've had plenty of times where Stockfish misses a particular move and it can take very long before it finds it without help. Recently I was analyzing a game that made me think: very far from perfect. I guess my question is: how close is stockfish to being "perfect"? It's hard to judge how good the best entity really is because nothing can beat it. But maybe it just seems strong because humans are so bad at chess (objectively speaking). So stockfish is obviously very strong relatively speaking.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |