Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

The engine said black is winning I said no

Brilliant win . It would be interesting to see how the game evolved from the beginning .

Brilliant win . It would be interesting to see how the game evolved from the beginning .

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

@A8086555

Interesting blog.

Thanks so much for reading and for the mention,@RuyLopez1000!

@RuyLopez1000 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/FAFuRsMz) > @A8086555 > > Interesting blog. Thanks so much for reading and for the mention,@RuyLopez1000!

@A8086555 said ^

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/a8086555/blog/the-engine-said-black-is-winning-i-said-no/TqcuRJHl

A very interesting blog.
In the feedback forum, another example of the incorrect calculation of the SF18 can be found.
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/lichess-stockfish-18-computer-analysis-error-in-my-rapid-game

@A8086555 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/pJMkJEpQ) > Comments on https://lichess.org/@/a8086555/blog/the-engine-said-black-is-winning-i-said-no/TqcuRJHl A very interesting blog. In the feedback forum, another example of the incorrect calculation of the SF18 can be found. https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/lichess-stockfish-18-computer-analysis-error-in-my-rapid-game

Huh???

The original position is a trivial tactic. That the engine at DEPTH 1 is wrong is not a statement that it is stumped, it is a statement that depth 1 analysis is as meaningless as counting pieces.

I am by no means a strong player, but saw Rxf5 in few seconds, and it took me under a minute to convince myself it wins. (The Kxf5 line takes like 3 seconds to calculate to mate, and while I did not calculate all other moves rigorously to mate, several test-lines convinced me there was enough there.)

Huh??? The original position is a trivial tactic. That the engine at DEPTH 1 is wrong is not a statement that it is stumped, it is a statement that depth 1 analysis is as meaningless as counting pieces. I am by no means a strong player, but saw Rxf5 in few seconds, and it took me under a minute to convince myself it wins. (The Kxf5 line takes like 3 seconds to calculate to mate, and while I did not calculate all other moves rigorously to mate, several test-lines convinced me there was enough there.)

@CG314 said ^

Huh???

The original position is a trivial tactic. That the engine at DEPTH 1 is wrong is not a statement that it is stumped, it is a statement that depth 1 analysis is as meaningless as counting pieces.

I am by no means a strong player, but saw Rxf5 in few seconds, and it took me under a minute to convince myself it wins. (The Kxf5 line takes like 3 seconds to calculate to mate, and while I did not calculate all other moves rigorously to mate, several test-lines convinced me there was enough there.)

You are right! I admit I did exaggerate things a little. The main point I wanted to convey in my blog is that human intuition has uncovered flaws in low depth engine evaluations, which is quite a fascinating feeling. Thank you for taking the time to read and comment!

@CG314 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/JfEk2w8V) > Huh??? > > The original position is a trivial tactic. That the engine at DEPTH 1 is wrong is not a statement that it is stumped, it is a statement that depth 1 analysis is as meaningless as counting pieces. > > I am by no means a strong player, but saw Rxf5 in few seconds, and it took me under a minute to convince myself it wins. (The Kxf5 line takes like 3 seconds to calculate to mate, and while I did not calculate all other moves rigorously to mate, several test-lines convinced me there was enough there.) You are right! I admit I did exaggerate things a little. The main point I wanted to convey in my blog is that human intuition has uncovered flaws in low depth engine evaluations, which is quite a fascinating feeling. Thank you for taking the time to read and comment!

No, it has not. Your entire premises is a strawman.

Stockfish level one is NOT deep engine evaluation. It is the most superficial engine analysis you can have. Your blog does not show any example of intuition beating deep engine calculation, and indeed you will not find any such example, because intuition simply does not beat deep engine analysis.

Yes, there are a few studies, where in the contact of a study, a construction is made, where intuition can still beat engines, but this is because these are constructions, and the human intuition is relying on rules and themes used in construction (purity, known outcome, etc.), but which are not present in games, and that the engine is not aware of. If you were to add those rules to the engine, it would be impossible for intuition to beat it there as well.

No, it has not. Your entire premises is a strawman. Stockfish level one is NOT deep engine evaluation. It is the most superficial engine analysis you can have. Your blog does not show any example of intuition beating deep engine calculation, and indeed you will not find any such example, because intuition simply does not beat deep engine analysis. Yes, there are a few studies, where in the contact of a study, a construction is made, where intuition can still beat engines, but this is because these are constructions, and the human intuition is relying on rules and themes used in construction (purity, known outcome, etc.), but which are not present in games, and that the engine is not aware of. If you were to add those rules to the engine, it would be impossible for intuition to beat it there as well.