That is so damn funny, and true ! ^^

Yaa

You just made my day! :D

AlphaZero:"And bishops op."

Rofl .very nice jjudgement

julian jacq It’s a little odd that people are clamoring for engine games. It’s almost like a science fiction movie from the 1980’s. The Terminator with chess pieces instead of energy weapons.

@@ChrisHyde537 since the judgement day didnt happen back in 1997 we are all eager to get totally rekt by an AI by now =b

Thank you. I try my best, but I still blunder some reads now and again :(

Thanks (y)

More alpha more alpha PLEAAAAASE

and that is that

@@aragornsonofarathorn3461 HAHAHAHAH THESE COMMENTS ARE KILLING ME

And it was in this position that captures captures the game

Hmm ... But OK

19:46 😂

He did a video on a game with no captures :)

@@Tesla_Death_Ray Wow this comment section. is still active

@@jvplaster I don't see you in it.

@@Tesla_Death_Ray ikr but it was a 4 months old video...plus it was a chess video.mm I thought there won't be anyone watching it at late as now

@@jvplaster 4 months isn't that long. Also he has 400k subs. 3% of whom are women. He's helping chess a lot.

Ironic how creator and creation work huh?

It's interesting but if you really think about it, Alpha can play like that because it's an engine, it lacks emotions. To play so aggressively right from the start is something that even super gms, I feel, wouldn't feel relaxed with. In this game, Alpha gave up to 4 pawns(!!) just so it can have better mobility. I'm certain that there are players who can control themselves but in general, while aggressiveness is human nature, so is the instinct of survival. And I believe that even that can be truly seen in a chess game. While everyone longs to play interesting and aggressive chess, I think that for most people, it would be nerve-racking to proceed so willingly to sacrifices without gaining as exchange something more concrete other than "better mobility". And it's not like Alpha's sacrifices pay out in the short term; it really takes much of intuition and somewhat of emotional- distancing to play like that (from a human perspective).

i feel like alpha is playing in a way that takes advantage of other engines

true man. its ironic

Disagree, AlphaZero plays like a friggin alien. It doesn't even remotely care about material - its material count just seems like an afterthought compared to a billion positional factors only it can see.

It won't respond with the same move when it has already calculated its a loss.

@@Buffalo_Soldier maybe for free play engines yes, but for humans, you can't learn every possible variation so chess is never solved. Also I think there will always be an engine that beats the previous one

But it wouldn’t assume that their opponent would play perfectly

My thought was, why not supercomputing AI's always draw? Guess AlphaZero is still a child :/

There are more possible iterations of chess games than there are atoms in the observable universe. Its not an easy task to say the least

Holy fuck

This one right here, officer.

What the hell

Yes... Yes, officer. They're the one...

This is one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen. It's truly exquisite how absolutely useless this is.

Im pretty sure they are all draws

@@adammcgee4228 Or maybe white always wins. Only one way to find out!

They win and draw depending on how much alpha has 'learned'

S Smith if white always win then it's sad because chess has been solved

@@wibupikachu851 Same thing if it's always a draw or if black always wins.... if chess is solved with one of these results it's solved.

theblondknight alpha zero: what a noob

Laughs in tal

Well, Alpha Zero doesn't understand chess, its true

Alpha Zero and Tal: Laughs*

Lol

LucapEe LucapEe Ok

Htoo Doh ok what ???

I'd report everyone who loses to you, we've seen what this tactic does to stockfish.

No one gonna win. REKT STOCKFISH

That's cuz this is bobby playing

knight and bishop are rather equal at some point but having a bishop pair is certainly far more interesting than knight pair, especially at open games and playing at both sides in the endgame

There was one game where alpha zero devastated stockfish using its knights.

@@adiadiadi333 Yeah but also several games (including this one) where alpha used the bishop pair to destroy stockfish.

@@kulkidspin7691 well, knights are better in closed and bishops in opne games. Now try to compare forcing a position to close to forcing a position to open. You can force a position where the bishop is better than the knight much more often than vice verca, so the knight is (in my opinion) inferior. also the bishop can travel faster, can control more squares and doesn't suffer nearly as much from being badly placed.

I hope people check it out. Her commentary is nice to listen to.

Also Daniel King commentated on it at first, his analysis is pretty nice

I actually liked her video a little better, talking about the mystery behind Alpha Zeros multiple pawn sacrifices without any apparent compensation.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pLaVq6uSq7KVpaM.html

I was going to say the same thing! But I actually got a lot out of both videos. Anna highlighted the apparent strangeness with the pawn movement and the lack of attacking at certain points by AZ. I really like when Agad shows why different moves were not played though, like the line he talks through at 5:50. Its amazing to see that AZ and SF are playing so far into the future like this with every move

I don't know of there are no mistakes. The mistake for stock fish seems to be in strategy. He seems to be more interested in defending his position and not loosing material. Alpha plans seems to be more decisive from the start, develops his pieces far more quickly while stockfish defends

@@victoryobosi4641 There are no blunders

You can become a great historian

wtf. Why here. Why.

Nice explanation of your point

I remember Morphy once claimed that control of certain squares in certain openings should count for points. Ie, +1.5 for overprotecting e5 as white. +1.7 for placing a knight there. Your idea of increasing a pawn's value as it marches across the board is very interesting. Some more criteria to consider: If two pawns are connected in a chain, and the more advanced one is unopposed by any pawns and on the 5th rank, then add 6 points. If the further unopposed pawn is on the sixth rank and is still connected, add 9 points. If on the seventh, start looking for mate in N. Exceptions: If the pawns are unopposed by other pawns they can still be blocked by pieces. A pawn that is blocked by a knight is less valuable than a pawn blocked by a rook. Unopposed pawns are increasingly valuable the fewer pieces the opponent has. If two pawns are connected and unopposed, then you have a 9-point advantage if the further one is on the sixth rank. If the further one is on the seventh rank, start searching for mate in N. If three pawns are connected and unopposed, the game is won, even if the opponent has a bishop for the three pawns. Suppose the black king is on e7, you have a pawn on e6, and a pawn on f7. The game is won. If black takes on e6, the f-pawn promotes. Advanced and unopposed pawns can become worthless, instantly drawing the game, if a special position is reached that compromises the game. Read into Philidor, Vancura, Lucena positions. The pawn also becomes worthless if the defending side can create a fortress. There is no way for the attacker to win, and can only force stalemate. The pawn may be on the sixth rank but it will never march the remaining two ranks. In lines where white plays against the sicilian dragon, English attack, a furious attack begins against the black king. This does not usually result in the king being mated. But at some point white has a choice. A pawn on h5 can capture the g6 pawn. Capture to open lines for the mating attack, or push to h6? Frequently, white will push to h6. This is called the positional style. Should the h7 pawn ever fall, queening would be just around the corner. As a result black is tied down to guard said pawn, limiting piece activity. In such a case, the h6 pawn must be valued much higher than 1 point. Bonus: Did you know that modern European theory gives the value of a rook at 4.5 instead of 5? Think back to the last time you had a queen vs 2 rooks game. If there were multiple loose pawns on the board for you to pick up, then you won, as the rooks were too clumsy to coordinate. If the position was almost completely locked up with only a few open files, then their rooks infiltrated by force and won the game. If the rooks were passive and only defended pawns, you won. If the queen was passive and only defended pawns, you lost. Half the time, a queen is better than two rooks, so rook value was adjusted to be 4.5. Edit: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/psupipCbrL6tf30.html A properly defended bishop pair outclasses the queen, especially if there are no pawns on the four central squares. Bishop pair, plus 4. Bishop pair, defended by active rook or knight, with unopposed central control, plus 8 (esp if it can escort a pawn).

this is a really good explanation, thanks

Or just sober 😊

@@vladavasiljev we will never know what brillliancies Tal could've created, had he been sober. Fischer would've never become world champion and maybe sacrifices would now be part of modern opening theory

@@Tobi-pn2xs Fischer would definetely become world champion either way.

This is more like watching Morphy vs the legendary 19th century GM NN, where NN keeps getting checkmated in 15 moves

@@Tobi-pn2xs you're wrong about fisher

Dont want to burst your bubble, but he usually prepares his vids, he looks up the database for tournament games and sees if the opening position has already been played or not. If it was played in the past, he looks up the game's result and sees wether black or white won.

@@trendy10s36 i think you totally bursted his bubble.

Anass Monteblanca Don’t want to burst your bubble, but I was employing something called humour. Look it up the way Agad looks up the games and tell me if you or I won. Hint: you didn’t.

Is that where the Parthenon is?

@@dimitrioskyriazis3817 It's only humorous if you don't understand how the videos are actually made. Because if you understand that he literally just looked the game up, it is no longer funny or surprising that he remembers it. Right? Not sure if you're just trying to be humorous again here.

And Stockfish is Fisher playing from hell

@@nickshtenikov1261 Talpha Zero vs. StockFischer

This is my favorite KZfaq thread of all time 💜

lol...

@@ytmndman legendary

Me too

Me too..!

Agadmator played an entire game and then realized that all of it hinged on one pawn capture that didn’t happen😂

Have fukn being crushed by 1100s online :D

"Finally learnt chess. Can't believe that I was playing wrong all that time." I was taught chess at one point when I was young, but I vaguely recall Castling as an actual move, I especially never heard of En Passant when I was a kid. so that tells you how much I knew before coming into this channel. Castling does look like a made-up move as an excuse, to get the King into the corner. I amuse myself by picturing the King and Rook doing a dance around each other as they get to their squares. ;)

@@gredangeo me too when I was young I thougt castling is an excuse xd

I, as a kid, castled cuz I thought it was cool to move two pieces at the same time and to confuse my opponents cuz they didn't know what it was😂

@@Tobi-pn2xs I believe castling is one of the most charming things about chess when we were kids, seems like a cheat code to move two pieces in one turn :)))

You absolutely can, I believe. Saw this in a Fischer vs. Smyslov game once. Three white pawns going high.

It was so epic

HahahaHA

Read it in a british accent

The POWER of the dark side *vader fist*

Stockfish: (registers AlphaZero as opponent) evaluates as -0.5 from White before first move played.

You can punch in Alpha Zero moves into your Stockfish engine. Stockfish is free

@@paxpacis2 where can i download it?

@@anandasatria7734 It's on Lichess and chess.com

Valkyrie Regalia uh ok

Jusy because it makes strange and out of the ordinary moves for a computer DOES NOT mean it plays like a Human. The only thing that makes a player a human is the ability to make mistakes. This thing makes humans look like Chimps.

Borat Sagdiyev It seem so

Borat? Shouldn’t you be kidnapping Pamela Anderson or something...

Yes, human-like playing is powerful, being more imaginative and creatively aggressive, but only if you have the infallible precision of an engine...

It doesn't play like a human at all... it has innumerable entire games and decision trees already active in memory.

@@Camcolito it plays in a way that reflects great games of the past where moves were played that intuitively felt like they'd gain an advantage & then calculated from the opponent's next move to see what advantage could be gained. Also it learned all those innumerable lines by doing just that, just playing lines & seeing where they went, which is why it 'feels' like it plays in a manner which is more human.

focus on game then :) that's pure joy

That just means you have to create some ;)

It also sucks to be late because all the good comments are already taken.

11 month gang

Sucks to be 2 years late because no one will look at your new comment

Why everybody like that wht's happen with that sentence!

Well, Kasparov was very impressed and pleased with AlphaZero.

Wise words. And it led me to check out your channel and see similar life-advice material. Subbed :)

@@sidgar1 Thanks man! :)

LoL you have a great imagination

Robert Hansen it was one of the starting positions in the TCEC

@@michaelvanzyl9418 What is the TCEC?

@@krys3001 Top Chess Engine Championship

all of it

lmao @@guycxz

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l9miacKWs6nZn4k.html

Rashid Nezhmetdinov

The winner