4 ms·

Interesting. I slowed a game down to 1000ms per move so I could realistically follow what was going on. The game started 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.e4? So White sacrifices (l

Interesting. I slowed a game down to 1000ms per move so I could realistically follow what was going on. The game started 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.e4? So White sacrifices (loses?) a pawn for no compensation on move 2. Not really sure what this says in respect of the experiment in general, but it does smell a little. Also; Showing the dark squares would be a massive usability advance! And it would be nice if they respected some simple and fundamental chess conventions (for example presenting the moves in the way I did in my comment above - move numbers increment after whole moves not half moves)

chaddeshon 11y ago
It's almost certainly playing out of an opening book. There is a move history, but you have to expand it.
- asdfologist 11y ago
  How does playing out of an opening book explain the opening blunder 2. e4?
  - danielbarla 11y ago
    Well, I guess if it really was out of a book, it would imply that the quality of the engine itself wasn't at fault, but rather a bad opening book. Also, without that line being thoroughly researched, it'd be difficult to say whether it's a blunder, or a clever sacrifice. Again, it could be an incomplete opening book which led the engine to offer the sacrifice, but then didn't have info on how to capitalise on it. Though in this case, I think it's almost certainly a blunder, that line does not appear to be a well known opening.
    - V-2 11y ago
      There are opening books, and there are opening books. 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. e4 can no doubt be found in some opening books due to the sheer fact that someone, somewhere, played it, and it got archived. Then yes it's a line that could get selected at random. It's not a serious opening though, it looks frivolous - could be played in simultaneous games, or in bullet chess for its surprise value etc. If you optimize the opening book to include serious games only, you're unlikely to come across this line. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=98&move=2&moves=Nf3.Nf6&nodes=74.98 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=98&move=2&moves... Given the insame amount of opening theory research humanity has done by now, if e4 on the third move here was even remotely close to a clever sacrifice, chess community would have noted it by now.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  Stockfish doesn't use an opening book, so unless MS added one to it, it is not.
- perlgeek 11y ago
  I'd say the exact opposite is true. With an opening book, both would play a much stronger opening. Without one, they have only a second to come up with an opening, so it's no surprise if the result is weird.

chaddeshon 11y ago

It's almost certainly playing out of an opening book. There is a move history, but you have to expand it.

asdfologist 11y ago
How does playing out of an opening book explain the opening blunder 2. e4?
- danielbarla 11y ago
  Well, I guess if it really was out of a book, it would imply that the quality of the engine itself wasn't at fault, but rather a bad opening book. Also, without that line being thoroughly researched, it'd be difficult to say whether it's a blunder, or a clever sacrifice. Again, it could be an incomplete opening book which led the engine to offer the sacrifice, but then didn't have info on how to capitalise on it. Though in this case, I think it's almost certainly a blunder, that line does not appear to be a well known opening.
  - V-2 11y ago
    There are opening books, and there are opening books. 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. e4 can no doubt be found in some opening books due to the sheer fact that someone, somewhere, played it, and it got archived. Then yes it's a line that could get selected at random. It's not a serious opening though, it looks frivolous - could be played in simultaneous games, or in bullet chess for its surprise value etc. If you optimize the opening book to include serious games only, you're unlikely to come across this line. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=98&move=2&moves=Nf3.Nf6&nodes=74.98 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=98&move=2&moves... Given the insame amount of opening theory research humanity has done by now, if e4 on the third move here was even remotely close to a clever sacrifice, chess community would have noted it by now.
alextgordon 11y ago
Stockfish doesn't use an opening book, so unless MS added one to it, it is not.
perlgeek 11y ago
I'd say the exact opposite is true. With an opening book, both would play a much stronger opening. Without one, they have only a second to come up with an opening, so it's no surprise if the result is weird.