Over and Over i have tried an old version i have of stockfish against every engine out there, nothing has ever ever beaten it once or even close.
The point is and ive said this before, despite all the annual rating improvement statistic bull i think chess engines have long reached its maximum they just pretend it isnt because of profiting i guess.
today i tried the fully powered Stockfish 6 engine against this old sf 1.1 engine of mine, and it just kept drawing and drawing
funny thing is, stockfish suggested its ow rating to be 3676 lol i know it isnt tho, the current top is between 3360-and 3500 i believe
well point is not even this top sf can beat my old sf 2.1 means chess engines already reached its limits in the early days of sf, and new rating is arranged profiting scheme imo, only explaination as i dare anyone to beat my old sf 2.1 once ever.
http://en.lichess.org/HQNMqmW5Well everyone is already fooled when Stockfish said they are the strongest engine. Pair it against Komodo 9 and see the results. Komodo 9 is convincingly better than the newest stockfish.
http://tcec.chessdom.com/live.phpGiven sufficient computation power, all engines comes to the calculations. Even if the algorithm is different, chess *is* a game of optimal logic.
Veritas, it is nice that you have followed recent hints and try to explore the new SF, but there are still some things not quite right with your conclusions.
SF is not made for the profit. It is free, open source and not sold for money. So the recent progress, since version 2.1 e.g., is not faked, of course.
Playing engine matches in a correct way is actually not so easy, I guess you have messed something up. Many people have, and it is not a shame, it takes a while to get things right.
But there is no doubt that your claim "i think chess engines have long reached its maximum they just pretend it isnt because of profiting i guess." is totally wrong.
As a matter of fact, the progress that has been made over the course of the past 10 years is nothing short of amazing. Several hundreds of Elo points, on equal hardware, beyond any doubts.
I always knew there was something fishy when I asked the engine what the best decision for me would be against a really strong opponent, and it answered: 'Just resign.'
chessico, but the other engines do profit
who knows how these scams are set up
look - im not blindly accusing anyone or anything, im simply stating the facts as ive witnessed them, i keep giving in to comments that tell me im not using the full capabalities of sf or such etc, yet ive tried all settings and computing powers, no luck of beating my lil old sf so far!
if you can prove to me u can beat my sf 2.1 i would be quite thrilled to tell u the truth
i hate dead ends
but i honestly doubt anything can surpass it as ive mentioned above, perfection has already been achieved, 50 or 100 elos dont seem to make a difference against lil old sf, leading to only 2 logically possible conclusions, either the improvement itself is insufficient to win, or perfect game has already been achieved, however admitting that would mean the end of many programs and their profoting just sayin..
Only an expert should make such claims as you do, and the experts are far from saying something like you insinuate. quite the opposite.
If you want to claim the "veritatem" from a point of view of an beginner with no experience I cannot stop you, obviously.
If you were truly interested in the matter, well this is the internet, make a start with studying the list I gave you the last time, or start getting some basic knowledge at sites like:
http://talkchess.com/forum/index.php.
I have been following computerchess for many years and I know what I am talking about, but laymen find the "truth" so much easier. Sorry, but it is annoying.
http://spcc.beepworld.de/Here Stefan Pohl is playing a lot of test games. He is a long time tester and knows how to do it.
The site documents the progress from SF 6 to the recent versions, under the specific conditions of this test series.
Just one example of many people who do similar tests and invest countless hours to find the truth.
the first post is just wrong i dont know where to begin.
i used to test engines in my younger years for a long time,
I tested some stockfish versions too. there is clear improvement.
you take this awfully personal, and insinuating u are some kind of expert on the matter. An expert wouldnt need to get emotional, he would just know, unless he was insecure about his own conclusions.
Let stop by saying this again because it seems u didnt listen to that part
I AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE nor claming anything as a veritatem as u put it, u judge me because u think my name implies arrogance lots of folks make that silly mistake, i always leave room for being wrong otherwise i wouldnt be here in this forum.
My "belief" that some sort of scam may be involved is just that, and ive provided reasonable cause for thinking so or coming to such a conclusion, i mean here you are making me to be the layman, yet u have not provided any proof thati am so devastatingly wrong in the matter
i will put it simply...............
i tried the old sf against rybka, komodo 9, fritz, houdini, and finally Stockfish 6 in multiple games with deeper and deeper depth and settings yet at BEST the result was a draw
i have to see any engine actually beat my old one THAT IS ALL, i am not claiming any truths just facts laid before
Which Are desperate to be "Proven" wrong Not emotionally criticized pardon me
get this, I want to be wrong! i was so dissappointed at the last draw
so i say it again, if you have or know of an engine or settings or requirements that can actually witness beat my old sf that would be marvellous! otherwise i dont need to look at any site or rating list because thats what i am arguing against to begin with.
do not categorize someone u simply disagree with or have yet to fully understand, obliviousness is the cause of most tragic conclusions.
