Відео

ty for your comment. I have tried to improve on the quality and looks of my videos.

@@HangHoangThi-ug3dh Dưới đây là bản dịch sang tiếng Việt: Để điều chỉnh độ sâu của Stockfish lên 60+, bạn cần thiết lập chính xác cài đặt của động cơ UCI trong giao diện Arena GUI. Tôi đã liên kết Stockfish và giao diện Arena GUI trong phần mô tả.

probably not a knight is too much

​​​@@mkei3639agreed. Maybe it can somehow get a draw on like depth 80 but its unlikely

Probably not. Stockfisch 17 will play as if its opponent is 3700. Sf 17 will sack its pieces alot, or just put its pieces on squares they die.

ikr :)

I use the chess.com game review which uses Stockfish 16 (i think) to review the game. Also "great move" simply means its the only move not loosing a significant amount of the advantage and i don't know why you would think it is wrongly assigned. I mean if you want i could run SF 17 just for you to check if actually there were other moves of similar strength lmao

It's bit great move bc it traps the black knight

@@Julius-chess I believe it's wrongly assigned because you have other options like a counter attack Pg4. A great move is only assigned when it's the only possible move in the position that doesn't lose on the spot or a big part of your advantage basically... I haven't checked whether or not that particular move should be assigned the great move with an engine though, just an example I quickly gave

​@@Krullfathif you are talking about the g3 instead of g4 its because it takes away the f4 square for the black knight. I can tell you without the engine that g4 would be bad. Again the analysis is done by chess.com.

Yea your right. I did make such a video (SF 17 vs SF 17). But for this one I mainly cared about having Magnus Carlsen and Stockfish in the title lmao

Okay so do you have any reason to suggest it isn't stockfish? I put in a lot of time to make this video, having stockfish run on my pc for hours and editing the video afterwards. Everybody can do this and I did. I use the arena GUI und downloaded Stockfish 17 via this link: stockfishchess.org/download/ I do not understand why you are accusing me of producing a scam. It seems like you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Respectfully, stop writing not very smart comments and try to respect those who put in the work!

@@w1llyboi248 ikr! btw i see you're a fellow geometry dash enjoyer. Let's go dude lmao

@@Julius-chesswhats ur hardest

@@scottwarren4998 i made stockfish play this opening with white because otherwise its clear that the game will end in a draw 100% please look at the description.

@@Julius-chess How do you know it's clear? have you tried it. However, try depth 45 instead. depth 60 is way too long to wait

@@scottwarren4998 my guy i think i know a tad more about engines then you and i care about creating interesting positions using stockfish 17. Letting stockfish play from the starting position will result in draws only. That is also why in computer competitions to find out engine strength the games are always played from prearranged openings.

@@scottwarren4998 also to answer your question. Yes i have tried it actually :)

@@Julius-chess I usually go to depth 20 at most when i let Stockfisch 17 face itself x)

It's just the browser based engine's opinion on the moves.

@@paloman95 hmm ok, browser is not meant for games that have high depth?

​@@scottwarren4998 i really hate when people think they know everything when they clearly dont. Especially when I answered your very question in a pinned comment already. The game was indeed played on depth 60+ on my desktop. The game was later reviewed by the chess.com game review which uses way lower depth. So just as I said in the description if there is an excellent sign its the game review engine being to weak to understand the move. The reason for me to use the chess.com game review is that it gives a nice looking analysis that my viewers are used to :) I really don't understand your thought process its not like the game review just knows the "best move" for every position, what point would there be then for me to run stockfish to very high depths. Also the reason the chess.com game review is not on super high depth is to save resources as it would be a gigantic server load to run the review for every user to super high depth.

@@scottwarren4998 are you not very smart. Its not about what its "ment" for its just about it not being strong enough to understand the moves 😭. What do you think how the game review works. U think some chess god makes sure it knows the best move for every position? No its runs an engine on way below depth 60 to avoid high server load to review the game thus not understanding some high depth stockfish 17 moves smarty-pants

@@Julius-chess Have I said I know it all? I didn't know what browser that was used. That's not a big deal, so why are you so frustrated?

ua-cam.com/video/hDOi_W-P_wE/v-deo.html

ua-cam.com/video/kikZTB1QvD4/v-deo.html

@@Julius-chess thanks brother I am happy. Because sometimes are hard found the beautiful music. Sorry my english I'am from Brazil

@@matheusagas6613 no problem dude 🤝

yes i can do that :) One thing there is no such thing as "Maximum depth" you can let Stockfish calculate for as long as you want but i can make stockfish 17 play at high depth if you want.

@@Julius-chess Can you please make a Test how deep Stockfish 17 can calculate? This position is mate in 584 moves: R7/8/8/8/7q/2K1B2p/7P/2Bk4 w - -

@@anonym5160 it depends on the speed of my cpu and the time given. I could let stockfish calculate this position for one minute and i will get a depth of around 45, one hour for like depth 65 and one day will maybe get me close to depth 80. there. I doubt stockfish will see the mate tho because it is not optimal at finding insane checkmates. It has a neural network that helps it focus on calculating the moves that seem most interesting for a normal position but that wont help it or rather even hinder it in such a special position. Finding a mate in 584 moves will not work. I can of course make it play the Cochrane Gambit tho :)

music name is GLORY

This was a pre arranged opening to make it more interesting :). Playing Nc3 is very dubious.

Sure dude go ahead :) Would be nice if you could mention my video in a pinned comment tho. My first chess video on this channel features even crazier moves you can use that for your edits too. If you want to use a different coloured board i can send u the games pgn

j^p^n - wrong

at like depth 40 Stockfish suddenly decided promoting to a rook is better i swear lmao

wait what do u mean 😭

When I got into chess engines I was surprised how they can make even the craziest gambits work (This is a dubious version of the dubious Kings Gambit btw lmao). I really appreciate the comment :))

Stockfish 17 is playing white. Hope you enjoyed the video :)

@@Julius-chess ty

​@@Julius-chessyes i did enjoy the vid

（訳：以下は翻訳されたものです） コメントありがとうございます！それは私にとって大きなモチベーションです。

I don't understand what you are trying to say but ty for the comment it helps alot 🤝

@@Julius-chess im saying that its literally briliant for every basic move

@@ahurax3710 The chesscom analysis is only calling one move brilliant. That move was a sac of a knight so its correct. Single exclemation mark means only move meaning its the only move to not lose a significant amount of evaluation. No basic move was called brilliant but i understand the confusion. Also of course the analysis likes the moves as this game was played by Stockfish 17 on very high depth so the play is of way higher quality then that of even the best human players.

It’s so funny seeing the browser analysis like “tf was that” because it doesn’t understand the sheer complication of some of stockfishs moves😂

I thought the same thing. The Maximum engine really struggles seeing sacrifices it seems. I just tried recreating this game against the Maximum engine again and it does work. You need to be very patient till it plays the variation you want because it plays random opening moves but sometimes it does go for 6... b5. After 8 moves its King is on g6 again 😭"3200 elo"

what are you saying, how does the wood board hurt to watch?

just like you 😎

damn :')

what 😭

I appreciate u dude! I'll do my best :) Not trying to be annoying but i just publish a new video... lmao

agreed, stockfish 1 was already pretty strong. Let me know if you have any video ideas. Next video will be quite the nice game between SF 17 and Komodo 14 btw o.o (incase ur interested)

@@Julius-chess yeah, do the video without screen blackening.

@@DeadHeadAhead i only used that because it was a "boring" drawn position at that point. But ok i see that it's annoying

​@@liljackypaper Amazing how u use the skull emoji when u have no idea what you are talking about!!!! 💀. Stockfish 17 is much stronger then the game review so if the game review thinks one of its moves is a blunder it most likely just does not understand the move. Stockfish 1 however is much weaker then stockfish 17 so it most definitely blunders sometimes. (Just like even stockfish 17 btw) Chess engines are not perfect and get improved constantly, as you can see in this video

@@Julius-chess Changes: "u" → "you" (to maintain consistency with the rest of the sentence). "then" → "than" (for comparison). "its moves" → "one of its moves" (for clarity). "does not" → "doesn't" (for consistency in contractions). "btw" → "by the way" (to avoid informal shorthand in a formal sentence). "sometimes." → "sometimes." (punctuation inside parentheses). Your sentence is mostly clear, but there are a few grammatical issues. Here's an improved version with corrections: "Amazing how you use the skull emoji when you have no idea what you're talking about! 💀 Stockfish 17 is much stronger than the game review, so if the game review thinks one of its moves is a blunder, it most likely just doesn't understand the move. Stockfish 1, however, is much weaker than Stockfish 17, so it definitely blunders sometimes (just like even Stockfish 17, by the way). Chess engines aren't perfect and get improved constantly, as you can see in this video." Still a very valid argument! 💀💀

@@LR6549x9 ty for the grammer help lowelotv4247

@@Julius-chess no worries. dw <3

Patricia 3 is playing the white pieces. Look in the description for more info and a download link if you are interested :)