Antichess analysis

"Starting position is +0.8, c4 and g4 are both -0.3"

• Starting position is #79, so 1 c4? and 1 g4?.

@tpr said ^

• Starting position is #79, so 1 c4? and 1 g4?.

I'm sure that is true, but Fairy Stockfish only found 0.8/0.9 at the depths I calculated, which are much deeper than the fishnet search this thread is actually about.

@WhyDoIPlayHere said ^

they aren't officially solved as a loss yet. But turns out everything except 1. e3 is a blunder?

In standard chess 1.g4 is a blunder and it's not solved as a loss yet either.

This change was a fix. Previously, all starting positions were hardcoded to +0.15 because it was conceived for just standard chess.
This meant that variants and custom initial positions such as knight/rook/queen odds had their first move wrongly evaluated.

Now, the engine evaluates the entire game, including the starting position.
If you play a bad initial move, you get an annotation, that's the way it is.

Thanks for ur feedback (gamblej, RwSF75)! I noticed that there are two types of analysis now so guess it explains these changes. Though I tried to analyze games with 1. g3 in different modes and with server analysis g3 is a blunder while with "analyze on your device" option with standard quality it's either inaccuracy or mistake and with better quality it's not marked at all and it's literally 0.0

g3 can be near 0, but it should still be an inaccuracy because the starting position would be around +0.8/0.9.

And just to be clear, I am speaking of starting position evaluation in typical searches by Fairy Stockfish NNUE. I'm not delving into antichess theory here.

Well, it's confusing if the same move has 4 different interpretations. And server analysis is kinda "public" cause in the community people can share games with requested analysis so it becomes a benchmark. U say that g3 is actually an inaccuracy but if in "public" analysis it's a blunder, it will be counted as a blunder. So the question: is server analysis gonna have the same depth as now?

@CuberJ said ^

I agree with @WhyDoIPlayHere, he has a point

Thanks, I'm "she", not "he" though haha. I just wanted to ask questions and didn't expect any drama. I've seen this tpr guy before and his opinion about antichess is clearly insulting like "haha, antichess is solved so u all are wasting time playing a solved game". He's been already told that everybody knows that antichess is solved but theory and practice are completely different and an average human isn't capable to remember all lines. However, he still continues the same rhetorics

@WhyDoIPlayHere

is server analysis gonna have the same depth as now?

There is a PR to bring variant NNUEs to fishnet (making it better), but it's from last year. Not sure what the status is.

The Good news : I can play blunder openings.

The mid news : I already play blunder openings.

The bad news : I have to learn by heart everything related to e3, which was already the case.

@WhyDoIPlayHere said ^

I agree with @WhyDoIPlayHere, he has a point

Thanks, I'm "she", not "he" though haha. I just wanted to ask questions and didn't expect any drama. I've seen this tpr guy before and his opinion about antichess is clearly insulting like "haha, antichess is solved so u all are wasting time playing a solved game". He's been already told that everybody ...

Oops, my bad
sry, he proves his openion a lot though even if its not fun