It's interesting to me how much this rating by Sesse differs to what Stockfish is showing from teh live/coverage on TV. Differences pretty consistently of around ~0.2 in favor of black in this...
It's interesting to me how much this rating by Sesse differs to what Stockfish is showing from teh live/coverage on TV.
Differences pretty consistently of around ~0.2 in favor of black in this position across several moves so far.
So the site shows the best lines in a list one underneath the other. Next to each line they have a number which indicates the 'balance or power'(score) after that move. Negative is in blacks...
So the site shows the best lines in a list one underneath the other. Next to each line they have a number which indicates the 'balance or power'(score) after that move. Negative is in blacks favour, positive for white. 1 is the value of a pawn, the computer takes into account positioning as well as material balance. Say it gives a score of -1.2, the computer assesses that after that move black has an advantage, equal to a pawn and a bit, though that could be entirely positional with material actually equal.
The top blue and red bars indicate the score for each of the moves already played. It's kind of nuts how after the slight advantage to Fabiano with white it became dead even for the mid to late game. They decided on a draw in the end, neither side could see a possibility to get an advantage, the computer seem to agree, instead of playing it out they decided to just call it.
If you click on the first blue bar you can replay the game using your arrow keys, the scoring and notation becomes clearer when it's not showing this completely drawn position.
Yeah I'm pretty garbage at chess but the program I use allows me to go over my game with an engine to see where I messed up, it uses the same notation as this site.
Ok, didn't know where to find that information. I ran through the first post game analysis listed underneath and it looks like Black was lucky to get a draw out of it. I'm still using my chess.com...
Ok, didn't know where to find that information. I ran through the first post game analysis listed underneath and it looks like Black was lucky to get a draw out of it. I'm still using my chess.com app in different ways to try and learn how to think strategically. I suspect with years of study I could learn how to beat this particular engine, at least to the point where I would have to pay for more levels lol.
I use the desktop site version of lichess, it offers free analysis on it server and generally a really nice approach with it being open source, relying on donation with no paid features. /end plug...
I use the desktop site version of lichess, it offers free analysis on it server and generally a really nice approach with it being open source, relying on donation with no paid features. /end plug
At least on lichess, I don't think it's possible to beat the computer on max level, or at least it'll be very damn hard/unlikely.
I followed some of the cometary and they did not really give the impression that Magnus was struggling to equalise whites starting advantage. In the post-game press conference, a journalist mentioned that this could be the best opening Magnus has had in his career. Also idk how much stock you should put in these tiny advantage numbers a computer assigns, you would need to be a supercomputer to actually carry. For reference when I analyse one of my game I frequently see a score between 3 to 6 and above 6 if I'm really loosing or winning.
That sounds like a really good version. I don't really care if I win or not, I just enjoy playing chess and not having to worry if a human opponent is sitting on the other side saying to their...
That sounds like a really good version. I don't really care if I win or not, I just enjoy playing chess and not having to worry if a human opponent is sitting on the other side saying to their friend, 'what a loser'. Seriously, I worry about these imaginary issues whenever I play a human and I see them getting in my head and then it's a psychology match. I get enough of that at work.
Yeah I get that, played a fair bit against a computer before I felt confident enough to even try a human opponent. Something I noticed was that human opponents kind of play differently, the engine...
Yeah I get that, played a fair bit against a computer before I felt confident enough to even try a human opponent. Something I noticed was that human opponents kind of play differently, the engine on a low level will sometimes just drop a queen for no reason or make really silly mistakes, other times they pick the best move in a really weird situation where it's not obvious to a human.
The Chess.Com engine at level 5 rarely makes mistakes unless you can mop up enough material to get to a more level end game. I have to go after the knights every game early because it's deadly...
The Chess.Com engine at level 5 rarely makes mistakes unless you can mop up enough material to get to a more level end game. I have to go after the knights every game early because it's deadly with those.
This is cool, but if you know how to play chess it's probably better to watch without computer analysis and compare with the analysis afterwards.
Yeah, although I think some of the live I watched seems to not want to integrate it in anyway into their analysis, which I think is a shame.
It's interesting to me how much this rating by Sesse differs to what Stockfish is showing from teh live/coverage on TV.
Differences pretty consistently of around ~0.2 in favor of black in this position across several moves so far.
Sesse uses stockfish so I think that's just the difference in having a supercomputer run the calculations.
Ok, I just casually play chess with my computer, I'm no genius. SO what are the next moves, or does someone resign? How does it end?
So the site shows the best lines in a list one underneath the other. Next to each line they have a number which indicates the 'balance or power'(score) after that move. Negative is in blacks favour, positive for white. 1 is the value of a pawn, the computer takes into account positioning as well as material balance. Say it gives a score of -1.2, the computer assesses that after that move black has an advantage, equal to a pawn and a bit, though that could be entirely positional with material actually equal.
The top blue and red bars indicate the score for each of the moves already played. It's kind of nuts how after the slight advantage to Fabiano with white it became dead even for the mid to late game. They decided on a draw in the end, neither side could see a possibility to get an advantage, the computer seem to agree, instead of playing it out they decided to just call it.
If you click on the first blue bar you can replay the game using your arrow keys, the scoring and notation becomes clearer when it's not showing this completely drawn position.
Yeah I'm pretty garbage at chess but the program I use allows me to go over my game with an engine to see where I messed up, it uses the same notation as this site.
Ok, didn't know where to find that information. I ran through the first post game analysis listed underneath and it looks like Black was lucky to get a draw out of it. I'm still using my chess.com app in different ways to try and learn how to think strategically. I suspect with years of study I could learn how to beat this particular engine, at least to the point where I would have to pay for more levels lol.
I use the desktop site version of lichess, it offers free analysis on it server and generally a really nice approach with it being open source, relying on donation with no paid features. /end plug
At least on lichess, I don't think it's possible to beat the computer on max level, or at least it'll be very damn hard/unlikely.
I followed some of the cometary and they did not really give the impression that Magnus was struggling to equalise whites starting advantage. In the post-game press conference, a journalist mentioned that this could be the best opening Magnus has had in his career. Also idk how much stock you should put in these tiny advantage numbers a computer assigns, you would need to be a supercomputer to actually carry. For reference when I analyse one of my game I frequently see a score between 3 to 6 and above 6 if I'm really loosing or winning.
That sounds like a really good version. I don't really care if I win or not, I just enjoy playing chess and not having to worry if a human opponent is sitting on the other side saying to their friend, 'what a loser'. Seriously, I worry about these imaginary issues whenever I play a human and I see them getting in my head and then it's a psychology match. I get enough of that at work.
Yeah I get that, played a fair bit against a computer before I felt confident enough to even try a human opponent. Something I noticed was that human opponents kind of play differently, the engine on a low level will sometimes just drop a queen for no reason or make really silly mistakes, other times they pick the best move in a really weird situation where it's not obvious to a human.
The Chess.Com engine at level 5 rarely makes mistakes unless you can mop up enough material to get to a more level end game. I have to go after the knights every game early because it's deadly with those.