when ur oponnent is a grinder,that robot is a bugatti

Lose

I think most people like to tight a game

Forcing WorstFish to checkmate you is the impressive part. Farting around with all the queen promotions is fun and all, but capturing their pieces and promoting your pawns is not impressive given that the bot is specifically not trying to stop you.

Right? The amount of time taken to perfect that and the chess knowledge and experience to do that is insane

Why doesn't cautious try to play the worst possible moves where Cautius ALSO LOSES THE GAME? If catius succeeds with that, he is smarter than the bot.

Think about it. wouldn't it be harder to lose to worstfisch with 3 queens instead of 8 queens?

@@scottwarren4998 that's impossible. Gotham already did a video about WorstFish vs WorstFish. If you don't force them to end the game they will just play on and on into a draw for eternity, both of them blundering mate forever. You can't force WorstFish to win by playing worse than WorstFish. That's like trying to beat Stockfish fair and square. It can't be done.

@@paul_warner Maybe a new worstfisch can lose to the old worstfisch? I don't get why Catius is not trying to play the worst moves, is he too afraid of that since he thinks worstfisch will play worse in a better way than him?

you meant winning?

Losing against WorstFish is actually pretty difficult since it actively walks into 1-move mates, and it's easy to end up in a situation where those are ALL of your moves, and you win.

It’s easy just resign

I’m getting a world record!

Should be fairly easy (discounting resigning which is trivial), basically delete your own pieces through zugzwang and force it to mate you.

It feels this way but there are better achievements like the fastest stalemate or Chess match with the most moves

It's not programmed to lose , it's programmed to make the worst move

@@gokaytaspnar1355 isn't that the same thing?

@@purplewine7362 When it plays the worst move, it gives you a chance to punish its blunder. However, if it were designed to lose, it would try to force you to win.

@@gokaytaspnar1355 yes but i'm saying the worst move should force you to win. so maybe what this bot plays isn't technically the worst move?

@@purplewine7362 right now the bot would blunder mate in 1 instead of forcing you to checkmate in 3 It has no strategy, for the bot the worst move is the worst evaluation

they just noclipped into another dimension

Noclip? Geometry dash reference?

@@ignDartI was about to say that…

the king is just built different

@@ignDartw reference

gg

😮

CautiousSeat: forces him to unresign

literally the best comment I have read in all my life. bravo

Yeah, trying to play badly against an opponent trying to win and trying to play badly against an opponent trying to lose require different moves. Also depends on the skill level of the opponent.

I would love to compare that worstfish to a chess bot that plays the worst possible move considering the opponent also plays the worst possible move

@@jacobD643 wouldn't be hard to flip that around in its minimax algorithm.

yeah, worstfish is not programmed to lose to an opponent trying to lose. it's programmed to lose as quickly as possible against an opponent trying to win. so, the player in this video didnt actually beat the bot, they just played in a way that made the program useless. if worstfish played the worst move assuming the opponent would also play the worst move, then worstfish would never win.

​@@bobjoe8182But assuming that, worstfish should open with shortest mate possible which is 2 move mate

Yeah man

More specifically, Stockfish evaluates moves assuming that the opponent is going to play the best moves, which is fine when you're trying to be the best because if they make a sub-par move, it will help you. However, when trying to make the worst move, if you're opponent makes a worse move, now, the evaluation can be higher than anticipated.

There's indeed a difference between trying to play the worst moves and trying to lose the game. I was wondering why it wasn't trying to for example give checks with the queen that force you to take it.

Yes, the worse move is conditional on your opponents ability and likely responses. The best move is too. Against a 500 elo, setting up a cheeky discovered attack or long range mate-in-one is very likely to work and give you a larger advantage than the "best move" recommended by stockfish who judges things according to optimal counter play.

@@QuantumHistorian Yep, Stockfish's best move involves a 15 move sequence or more to give you a +0.2 advantage...when you can literally Scholar Mate your opponent :D

@@justinbrentwood1299 Also it assumes that after this move it itself will make good moves.

42

🤣

As the king, well, it's gonna be a very fun night.

​​​@@Tetracontakaitetragon_💀💀💀_

​​@@gracamaria508damn that's wavy ngl

​@NotAWake3.14 did u kill the 90 other queens like a squid game cauz now there cause now there only 10 queens 😂😂

It also doesn't make sense if you think about it at all. Like of course you're a winner. Your objective in a game isn't to stop your opponent from getting his or her desired result. It's to get your own desired result. Playing chess against someone trying to lose can be considered a co-op game.

​@@byeguyssrymy understanding of that is that when going up against someone trying to win, by checkmating them you will the game but you don't win against them, but if u get checkmated by someone trying to lose, you lose the game but beat them and win agenst them

​@@byeguyssrythat's true. Winning equals gaining your objective. It doesn't matter if it helps someone else or not. But, if we say like this that your "win" is not letting other's win on their own goals (envy!!) Then, the quote makes sense. Depends on what your "win" is. You don't win the game, but you win your own accomplishment.

Ah yes. Sweet paradoxes.

@@LordNNero I think the real sense behind trying to loose rather than win here is that it is a considerably more interesting thing to do.

Winning the game of Chess 2. The object of the game is to lose chess.

I never knew i was born as a grandmaster. 💀

indeed

​@@Hello_darkworldoof

The missile knows where it is, because it knows where it isnt.

to know ALL the good ones

*LEVY

@@gamesafoot No its Levi roseman

@@RishabhSharma10225 No its really not. Don't say if you don't know. Hes said it soo many times thats its levY with a Y but people just love to spell it levi!

Which video was this😂

@@slobobutme3045it’s probably a joke

29 days ahead. Nice.

29 days and 4 hours in calculations

I'm the 1000th like

@@scottwarren4998 bro he did lose by the bot intentionally and yes he is smater than the bot and even if he plays the worst moves as he did, he bot would just not eat the piece as it did not

Why doesn't cautious try to play the worst possible moves where Cautius ALSO LOSES THE GAME? If catius succeeds with that, he is smarter than the bot.

How to lose a chess playlist: This is the best video

It's just two GMs trying to force self-mate. I'd love to see that

Selfmate World Championships has at least the same prowess as the fisher random WC.

This should be an official game mode. The loser is the winner

its actually really stupid because it would simply never happen. the game itself is just a draw as checkmate would never happen. u cannot self mate yourself, your opponent has to checkmate you, so you could never force a self mate. the opponent has to willingly checkmate you, but they wont because thats not their goal. maybe u can change the rules to do something with material@@leonaise7546

whoever loses wins

*BM = Bad Master

GM: Genius Man

We are not greater then AI.

@@gsas3012 We absolutely are...for now...

I don't see any difference between checkmating someone or forcing someone to checkmate you, especially in the case where you know what moves your opponent will do, everyone could do it, just let him move without taking your piece and avoid stalemates

Why are we greater than machines? That was the point CautiousSeat won the game by not letting the other opponent get its desired result which is to lose.

⁠@@gsas3012we still are in open environments (chess is a closed environment) for now

It's over

It's just over if it was a real chess match

I will destroy the 69 likes just as my 69 among us levels were changed to 70

B

Human would win very easily.

Human could probably scholar's mate this bot

It would still lose cause stockfish would, for example, move the queen into a position that threatens a piece, then on the next move worstfish would move the queen somewhere that it can be taken for free, and then you repeat for every other piece. What might be interesting is Levy vs sub-1000 rated subscribers, but they can redeem a limited number of worstfish moves (3 might be a good place to start) and try to win by strategically using worstfish to sabotage Levy at opportune moments.

Good cop bad cop

Maybe

Is CautiousSeat even real?

In Combinatorial Game Theory, this is known as "misère" play. There's a whole theory behind how to do it in a variety of games.

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

I love that episode lol

I didn't hear no bell

Worstfish doesn't really try to lose exactly - it's more that it tries to put itself in a position where "even if someone else took over and played perfectly from that point on they would still be losing". When worstfish is evaluating the position, it's assuming that everything after its terrible move is being played optimally (not just the opponent, but also its own moves too), so if it sees that a move can force a checkmate, it will never make that move even if someone actively trying to lose could choose to make that move and then just not follow it up with the checkmate afterwards.

Do you know how to find the video? Would be interesting to watch.

the L word got spicy af

They're in a palace lol 🏰

There are 8 pawns on each side, so 16 pawns in total. If all these pawns somehow promote to queens, that would be 16 queens. Plus the 2 queens in the beginning So the max is 18 queens, or 9 queens per king which is nuts

bunk beds exist

@@elias69420 Average Muslim enjoyer with 72 queens

Perfectly said.

But that's the reason it's programmed right, because it isn't programmed to lose, it's just programmed to play the worst possible move at the given time

@Abbas but it DOESN'T play the worst possible move at any given point. That's the point. Example: Force opponent to take queen.

@@jaideepshekhar4621 yeah, not forcing opponent to take queen was a mistake even I noticed but I think rest was fine

@@i_never_had_a_burgerits not the worst move because it selects the worst move in a list of moves under the assumption of perfect play of BOTH parties. This means: 1. the opponent is trying to win and 2. it assumes that it will play perfectly after the move Even if you think that 1. is not important, assumption 2. is. A true worst-move engine should assume that it will try to lose in the future. (currently it is operating on the assumption that it can salvage/save the blunder in the future instead of trying to make it worse)

Yes 0.0000005 seconds longer than the last one 😂

I am afraid he is losing his mind to chess.

Who are the people who keep liking these "stare" comments? Do they still find them funny?

and actually here comes another task: can you selfmate yourself to the Worstfish and not even let yourself getting any chance to mate Worstfish in 1. (that is to say, however hard Worstfish tries, it can't put itself into mate in 1 by you)

@@wonderwind2716 That's actually pretty easy to achieve, since WorstFish doesn't think like that.

Legendary loss: 12/10

Fun fact: a chess board has 64 squares

@@justsomerandomguy3000 36 Queens are chilling with Bishop

​@@justsomerandomguy3000 This joke is way too old. 👴

@@rulaibrahim5205 u didn't get it. I meant to say that somehow the 100 queens got fit in 64 sqaures

Exactly. :)

this isnt actually the biggest problem. The bigger problem is that it assumes perfect play on BOTH sides after the move. It assumes that it will play perfectly itself so its pretty much just a blunder that looks into the game with depth 1 (it will never actually strategize and only look one move deep because it self-sabotages in the future)

@@hypnogri5457 Good point. I wonder if an even worstfish could be made.

@@raydarable i just looked at some worstfish games and this one shows the flaws of it very well (it accidentally wins in 9 moves because it can only look one move into the future & it assumes the opponent wants to win after one move): 1. e4 b5 2. Ke2 g5 3. Ke3 f5 4. Kd4 Na6 5. Ke5 c6 6. Nc3 c5 7. exf5 Bb7 8. Ne4 Nb4 9. Nd6+ exd6# 0-1 (found on lichess - player Ben2006Tor) And this is just a one-move tactic. I can imagine some very elaborate bad-chess engines to play some very pretty forced losses

@@hypnogri5457 Thanks for this!

Indeed

LEVY****** IT'S LEVY!!!!

@@leotheoaguy who's levy?

worstfish would actually be one of the worst engines for that variant because it assumes that it itself will play perfectly in the future (and so does the other player). Its pretty much an engine that can only look into the worst moves at depth 1 and it will self sabotage itself into being unable to strategize because its position evaluation only maximizes "worstness" for one move (and for depth 2+ it actually self-sabotages because it maximizes for the best move again)

@@hypnogri5457 This comment doesn't really make any sense to me. If you take into account how engines work, the search process, and the depth of the expanding tree of moves looked at, it makes sense that if you programmed stockfish to provide the move that made last place in the overall evaluation, it means that this move made it to the last place in the deep search of the 20/30/etc. move depth. The meaning is that it would be the worst move in a tree of evaluations, with the same depth and searching process as the move that came first (the best move). (Basically it's the worst move as far as the evaluation goes, for the next 30 moves (given that the depth is 30), not just for one move)

@@1GMitzy you are correct that its the worst move evaluated by stockfish up to depth X. But stockfish always assumes that it plays perfectly at any depth after the move you are currently trying to evaluate. What it basically does: 1. play a move 2. evaluate the position after the move has been played according to stockfish up to depth X. 3. repeat for all moves 4. pick the move with the worst evaluation according to step 2. (maximize according to the badness-criteria of worst eval)(this is what I call depth 1, I dont actually mean depth, so that was confusing. ) So what I mean is that its only maximizing according to "badness" one move deep. Internally stockfish evaluates the position using the "goodness" criteria of a good eval. edit: it only thinks about maximizing badness for one move and thats the first one. The evaluation up to depth X tries to maximize goodness again. It basically is chosing the move that will make the game as hard as possible to recover from with perfect play from both parties

you can see the flaw of this in this worstfish game I found on lichess: r2qkbnr/pb1p3p/3p4/1pp1KPp1/1n6/8/PPPP1PPP/R1BQ1BNR w kq - 0 10 Worstfish accidentally wins in 9 moves as black because it was unable to see further than one move into the future. It totally missed the tactic from the opponent because it selfsabotaged itself thinking that both are going to play perfectly after each move

@@1GMitzy a loss in 9 moves is proof enough that its a very bad engine in the game of "play-bad"-chess. I assume that an engine made by an amateur will probably be able to beat worstfish at bad chess. I think I saw one in another video that talked about this very topic and that one was made properly

He played in such a way that forced the bot to checkmate him

Black lost the game by getting their king checkmated. Checkmate occurs when a player's king is in check and the player cannot do anything to escape. In the final position, Black's king on h8 is in check from the pawn on g7. Looking at the three ways to respond to check, none of them work: - "Move your king away to a safe square." This is impossible: g7 and h7 are attacked by the white king, and g8 is occupied by a black bishop. - "Block the check." There isn't even any space between the king and the pawn, so this one won't work. - "Capture the piece giving check." None of Black's forces can capture the pawn, so this fails as well. Thus, Black's king is in checkmate, so Black loses the game.

Oh, I see. At the timestamp, the board is on the position right before checkmate. Well, just know that White moved their pawn to g7 on the following move, and that was indeed checkmate.

@@isavenewspapers8890Yeah, I was confused by that, too 😅