@@TheBcoolGuy queens gambit declined. the structure where white plans d4 and c4 and black goes d5 and e6. It's also possible for black to go c6 (Slav) or both (semi-slav).
I could have, but channels that provide accuracies after 2 opponents with a rating similar to the analyzing chess engine often give misleading results. What I mean is, accuracy metrics are only meaningful when analyzing games between two opponents weaker than the analyzing engine itself. In this case, Stockfish 17 at depths 20 and 60 are both stronger than Stockfish 16 at the depth used for analysis. This makes the accuracy and comparison of the playing strength inaccurate because the analysis engine doesn’t fully capture the deep nuances that Stockfish 17 does. The accuracies of their play according to the weaker engine was at 96-97% on both sides fyi. It doesn't actually mean anything though, because they both played stronger than the analyzing engine.. Also, the accuracy of the same game analyzed by different chess engines will always give different results... We could only really assign accuracy numbers that have a meaning if we had solved chess entirely, meaning we could actually compare it to the most perfect play
Both sides are running the same Stockfish 17 engine, meaning they use identical algorithms to evaluate positions and search for moves. While Depth 60 searches deeper and can refine its understanding of future positions better than Depth 20, the difference is often incremental rather than decisive. Depth 20, already seeing 10 full moves ahead, is incredibly strong and capable of finding highly accurate moves. Depth 60, on the other hand, can spot subtler improvements or anticipate deeper counterplay, which is why its evaluation from the opening to the middlegame improved from +0.14 to +0.50. However, this slight advantage was not enough to convert into a win, largely because both engines play extremely cautiously without an opening book, minimizing risks and often steering towards draws. In more imbalanced, complex, or dynamic positions, Depth 60 might have been able to outmaneuver Depth 20.
@@Stockfisher exactly, its quite literally comparing apples to apples, depth 20 is enough to get the gist of what the main line should be without searching all the way through it.
I'm going to remake this video but have them play an imbalanced opening for more interesting moves.
Here is the PGN:
[White "Stockfish 17 Depth 60"]
[Black "Stockfish 17 Depth 20"]
[BlackElo "4075"]
[WhiteElo "4075"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 d5
4. Nc3 Bb4
5. Qa4+ Nc6
6. e3 O-O
7. Qc2 Qe7
8. cxd5 exd5
9. Bd3 Re8
10. O-O Bg4
11. Nh4 Bd6
12. a3 Nd8
13. f3 Bd7
14. Nb5 g6
15. Nxd6 Qxd6
16. Bd2 a6
17. g3 Bb5
18. Bxb5 axb5
19. Ng2 Nh5
20. Ne1 c6
21. Nd3 f5
22. Bb4 Qf6
23. Rae1 Nf7
24. Bc3 Nd6
25. Rf2 Ng7
26. Qb3 Qd8
27. Rfe2 Ne6
28. Bb4 Nf7
29. h4 Qf6
30. Qd1 Qd8
31. Qc2 Rc8
32. Kg2 Qd7
33. Rc1 b6
34. Bc3 Ng7
35. Nf4 Ne6
36. Nd3 Qe7
37. a4 bxa4
38. Qxa4 Qb7
39. Rce1 Ng7
40. Nf4 Ne6
41. Nd3 Nd6
42. Qd1 Qd7
43. Rf1 Nc4
44. Rfe1 Nd6
45. Qb3 Qb7
46. Ne5 Rcd8
47. Kf2 Nf7
48. Nd3 Rb8
49. Rc1 h6
50. Ree1 Ng7
51. Qc2 Rbd8
52. Qb3 Ra8
53. Bb4 Rab8
54. Bd2 Qd7
55. Qa4 Rbc8
56. Ra1 Nh5
57. Bc3 Qc7
58. Ne5 Nxe5
59. dxe5 Ng7
60. Ra3 Ne6
61. Rea1 h5
62. Qd1 Rb8
63. Qd2 Rb7
64. b4 Qd7
65. Ra8 Kh7
66. Rxe8 Qxe8
67. Ra3 Nc7
68. Ba1 Ne6
69. Qa2 Qe7
70. Bc3 Nc7
71. Ra4 c5
72. bxc5 Qxc5
73. Qb3 Ne6
74. Qb4 Qc8
75. Ra1 Ng7
76. Be1 f4
77. Qxf4 b5
78. Qd4 b4
79. Bxb4 Qh3
80. Ra7 Qh2+
81. Kf1 Rxa7
82. Qxa7 Qxg3
83. Qf7 Qxh4
84. Bf8 Qh1+
85. Kf2 Qh2+
86. Kf1 Qh1+
87. Ke2 Qh2+
88. Kd1 Qxe5
89. f4 Qc3
90. Bxg7 Qxg7
91. Qxd5 Qf6
92. Ke2 Kg7
93. Ke1 Kh6
94. Ke2 g5
95. Kf3 Kg6
96. Qd3+ Kg7
97. Qd7+ Kf8
98. Qd5 gxf4
99. Qc5+ Kg7
100. Qc7+ Kg6
101. Qxf4 Kf7
102. Qxf6+ Kxf6
103. Kg3 Kg5
104. Kh3 h4
105. Kh2 Kf6
106. Kh3 Kg5
107. e4 Kf4
108. Kxh4 Kxe4
1/2-1/2
I think I could've won the game
If i tried
Possibly
@@Stockfisherprobably
wait I recognize this board & eval. This is the free game review website called game report
I totally believe you
A perfect game of chess always ends in a draw
this was truly perfect
Very interesting idea, gratz on a great video!
Good ol QGD. Like the 1930s
what is that?
@@TheBcoolGuy queens gambit declined. the structure where white plans d4 and c4 and black goes d5 and e6. It's also possible for black to go c6 (Slav) or both (semi-slav).
is that wintrcat's free game report tool thingy? It's pretty powerful ngl
Yeah I use that site for free game reports
Wow you didn't put the accuracy of this legendary battle
I could have, but channels that provide accuracies after 2 opponents with a rating similar to the analyzing chess engine often give misleading results. What I mean is, accuracy metrics are only meaningful when analyzing games between two opponents weaker than the analyzing engine itself. In this case, Stockfish 17 at depths 20 and 60 are both stronger than Stockfish 16 at the depth used for analysis. This makes the accuracy and comparison of the playing strength inaccurate because the analysis engine doesn’t fully capture the deep nuances that Stockfish 17 does. The accuracies of their play according to the weaker engine was at 96-97% on both sides fyi. It doesn't actually mean anything though, because they both played stronger than the analyzing engine.. Also, the accuracy of the same game analyzed by different chess engines will always give different results... We could only really assign accuracy numbers that have a meaning if we had solved chess entirely, meaning we could actually compare it to the most perfect play
Which version of stockfish evaluates the game then?
The version that evaluates the game is Stockfish 16 at depth 20. chess.wintrcat.uk/
Can you make encounter fine-tuned (with visible config) latest leela (on stunning "depth") and poor-tuned stockfish 10 (yes, 10) on 20 depth?
I certainly could, but what is poor-tuned and fine-tuned settings according to you?
Why didn't the 60 win
Didn't see mate in 61
diminishing returns beyond depth 20 for most engines.
Both sides are running the same Stockfish 17 engine, meaning they use identical algorithms to evaluate positions and search for moves. While Depth 60 searches deeper and can refine its understanding of future positions better than Depth 20, the difference is often incremental rather than decisive.
Depth 20, already seeing 10 full moves ahead, is incredibly strong and capable of finding highly accurate moves. Depth 60, on the other hand, can spot subtler improvements or anticipate deeper counterplay, which is why its evaluation from the opening to the middlegame improved from +0.14 to +0.50. However, this slight advantage was not enough to convert into a win, largely because both engines play extremely cautiously without an opening book, minimizing risks and often steering towards draws.
In more imbalanced, complex, or dynamic positions, Depth 60 might have been able to outmaneuver Depth 20.
@@Stockfisher exactly, its quite literally comparing apples to apples, depth 20 is enough to get the gist of what the main line should be without searching all the way through it.
@@michn5711 Pretty much
Common best moves according to. Stockfish at opening
Why stronger white?
To see how the depth increases playing strength