Wow, it means all those pronouncements you've made about what the best move must be have to be re-evaluated.
I guess someone who lives by the engine also dies by the engine.
Wow, it means all those pronouncements you've made about what the best move must be have to be re-evaluated.
I guess someone who lives by the engine also dies by the engine.
Wow, it means all those pronouncements you've made about what the best move must be have to be re-evaluated.
I guess someone who lives by the engine also dies by the engine.
Well, people happily die doing hobbies. Chess programming is my interest/ hobby. ( Disclaimer--- I am not the authour of Stockfish )
I had C, C++ certificate about 20 years ago. I am not writing any codes now but following /discussion in chess programming groups ( talkchess/ fishcooking)
Wow, it means all those pronouncements you've made about what the best move must be have to be re-evaluated.
I guess someone who lives by the engine also dies by the engine.
Truth be told, SF is always improving and development versions are released rather often, about analysis, I'm pretty sure human analysis gets outdated as well
Wow, it means all those pronouncements you've made about what the best move must be have to be re-evaluated.
I guess someone who lives by the engine also dies by the engine.
Truth be told, SF is always improving and development versions are released rather often, about analysis, I'm pretty sure human analysis gets outdated as well
Sure, I'm just taking cheap shots.
But the truth is letting an engine (which is fundamentally ignorant of chess) think for 100 years if fairly useless when it comes to practical games. That's my main gripe.
I had C, C++ certificate about 20 years ago. I am not writing any codes now but following /discussion in chess programming groups ( talkchess/ fishcooking)
Nice.
I'm learning some python and C++, but while python is easier, C++ is more attractive to me at the moment.
Wow, it means all those pronouncements you've made about what the best move must be have to be re-evaluated.
I guess someone who lives by the engine also dies by the engine.
Truth be told, SF is always improving and development versions are released rather often, about analysis, I'm pretty sure human analysis gets outdated as well
Sure, I'm just taking cheap shots.
But the truth is letting an engine (which is fundamentally ignorant of chess) think for 100 years if fairly useless when it comes to practical games. That's my main gripe.
Engines are tools and like any tool, it can be easily misused and has it quirks.
I had C, C++ certificate about 20 years ago. I am not writing any codes now but following /discussion in chess programming groups ( talkchess/ fishcooking)
Nice.
I'm learning some python and C++, but while python is easier, C++ is more attractive to me at the moment.
I only know C, I've enjoyed it given it teaches you how computers work.
It's just a pity, IMO, that someone like drmrboss is rated nearly the same as me but makes errors like this.
I had C, C++ certificate about 20 years ago. I am not writing any codes now but following /discussion in chess programming groups ( talkchess/ fishcooking)
Nice.
I'm learning some python and C++, but while python is easier, C++ is more attractive to me at the moment.
Depending on your leanings, you might want to check into C# over C++.
I am using Stockfish for generate opening books. There are changes almost in every position. For example after 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 SF10 suggest as best move Bc4 but SF11 play Nf3. Or after moves 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 SF 10 play d4 but SF11 suggest Bb5.
Engines Principal variation may change with time. If there is two different suggestions, SF11 is likely better in majority of positions ( no need to compare old program vs new program. They already tested millions of games to get a better program).
Regarding computerized opening book, there are many popular books for free where they were genereated with depth 40 to depth 50.
e.g https://zipproth.de/Brainfish/download/
https://sites.google.com/site/computerschess/download
How powerful is Stockfish 11?
It is 2x more powerful than SF10, SF 11 can give 2x time handicap to SF 10. Every new release, newer SF is two times more powerful.
In 20 years ago, human and engines were toe to toe. These days, SF 11 is estimated to be x1000 times more powerful than human. ( SF 11 can give x1000 times handicap which can be seen in SF release claim)
But the release notes say that SF11 is only 50 ELO stronger than SF10?
Yes, + 50 elo is equivalent to x2 computing time.
e.g . If old program like Rybka 3 is 300 elo weaker than SF 11, Rybka 3 needs x 32 times handicap to compete toe to toe against SF 11.
Pardon my ignorance.
There are three engines:
01. stockfish_20011801_x64.exe
02. stockfish_20011801_x64_bmi2.exe
03. stockfish_20011801_x64_modern.exe
What are the differences between them; which is best to use?
I suppose it depends on your PC's specs, not sure.
Pardon my ignorance.
There are three engines:
01. stockfish_20011801_x64.exe
02. stockfish_20011801_x64_bmi2.exe
03. stockfish_20011801_x64_modern.exe
What are the differences between them; which is best to use?
I suppose it depends on your PC's specs, not sure.
They use different instructions to calculate faster, some of those instructions can only be processed by modern CPUs, the fastest version of those three is the bmi2 version (bmi2 is a set of instructions), followed by modern.
Someone please explain to me what is a stockfish?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockfish
http://abrok.eu/stockfish/
Note. It was released in developmental website only and if you would like to see via main page
https://stockfishchess.org/
Menu ---》》 Download》》 ------》 download developmental build