Leela is brilliant vs Stockfish's Bogo-Indian

[@BM-ChessClub]

That queen sack was absolutely nutty. The long term vision of Leela is remarkable and as a bonus... It's extremely cool

[@saldownik]

Leela forgot to start without a knight

[@ChessNetwork]

😎

[@Javidfarali1980]

😂

[@chessanalysis64]

Inspirational Chess by Leela , Thanks Jerry for your advanced mentoring !!!!

[@ronaktripathi6332]

16:54 is a stunning checkmate! The three white pieces coordinating as a triangle to box in the black king is beautiful

[@stevenorth1564]

terrifyingly good chess...and this is 5 years ago

[@BM-ChessClub]

Those checkmate combos are sick

[@TheTerryman100]

A great demonstration for the quality of the pieces. Amazing analysis, thanks Jerry! I find it amazing, that none of black pieces ever crossed the 4th rank, only one of the rooks in the endgame. And by the way that was the only check, black gave for team white, just complete domination by Leela.

[@Adam-hj1hc]

Beautiful game. Great analysis. Thanks for the video, Jerry. Also, what is the TCEC win rule??

[@Javidfarali1980]

I really enjoy computer matches. This was a good one thanks for sharing Jerry 😊

[@MoonBurn13]

Astounding. Just got through, coincidentally, watching a Bogo Indian game on another channel with state of the art Stockfish 17 playing Minic, where “The Fish” was even more otherworldly. Played a new variation out of the opening, and pulled a position out like a rabbit from a magician’s hat.

[@TheThinkersBible]

Excellent analysis, thanks!

[@ChessNetwork]

👍

[@TheMarksT]

Very good piece coordination and constructing in that rare attack! Interesting indeed!

[@heffalump111]

ChessNetwork covers a TCEC game. Life is good.

[@IndigoBassNotes]

The Leela stuff is deep dark magic from a part of the Chess World no human can go.

[@rayclay2]

nice one jerry. reminds me of your lessons.

[@enriquevecerra4651]

Brutal partida.Saludos.

[@ChessNetwork]

😎👍

[@scstewart]

12:25 i'm not a chess engine expert or anything, but i think this tends to happen when the computer evaluates the opponent as having 0 good/improving moves, and if it can't immediately capitalize on anything itself, it will pass the turn to give the opponent a chance to blunder, since it knows there aren't any moves they can make that are any better than treading water. at some point a repetition draw is threatened, so it eventually decides to "go for" a position change on its own accord, since it knows it's doing better than a draw, even if it can't immediately find a win

[@exponentmantissa5598]

Not quite right. Chess computers do not suddenly decide to "go for" a different direction, there is no randomness. It is all based on positional evaluation. The reason that the computer didnt do much as black is that it was almost in zugzwang. The computer also probably suffered from some horizon effect where it hasnt calculated that just beyond its current evaluation tree that the position starts to turn. The computer will always play the move with the best positional score. This is exactly how people get caught using computers, they end up "picking" the strongest scoring moves just way too often. If you showed me this game and said that white was a person I would instantly say the player had cheated.

[@rmendeljacobs2832]

16:49 you missed the 3rd checkmate possibility , bg7#

[@saudude2174]

Analysed computer matches are much more interesting than GM games. Simply because the tactics are mind-blowing. I wish we had more videos like that. It also takes a master like you to explain these games in a satisfying manner, so there's not many videos like yours out there.

[@CoachJohnMcGuirk]

Nah. Human games will blow your mind harder. Watch Aman resetting the board on his opponent from a couple days ago. By far the coolest thing I've ever seen in chess and a bot would never.

[@saudude2174]

@@CoachJohnMcGuirk Dunking on chess patzers is Bumbletons favourite activity. No wonder he is one of the weakest GMs and gets frequently beaten by IMs. He is nothing compared to Hansen, let alone the top15 players. Doesn't even possess half the strategic mind that people like Nakamura or Carlsen have. His games are only exciting for kids below 2100 FIDE.

[@CoachJohnMcGuirk]

@@saudude2174 as if you could premove that sequence in your wildest dreams! Would you be more impressed by it if magnus had done it? Your logic makes no sense.

[@saudude2174]

@@CoachJohnMcGuirk The things that impress you don't impress me, because you're a patzer and I've been playing chess my whole life. Like I told you, even Eric Hansen would steamroll Bumbleton in a serious match. Haman is the worst GM in the world, he gets beaten by IMs frequently. Deal with it and stop crying kiddo.

[@saudude2174]

@@CoachJohnMcGuirk You have no actual arguments against what I wrote. You get excited by someone premoving already won games against patzers. That means you're not even an actual serious chess player. Just some child. Respond to the arguments I made earlier or accept your favourite GM bumbleton is weak compared to actual top players.

[@ardentthinker5430]

I wonder if Lila planned the sacrifice of her queen frim the start.

[@kolaas2006]

I want to see current Leela vs current Leela after maximum training and with long thinking time.

[@Wolfinator234]

I play correspondence and I've actually found Leela 0.24 and 0.25 the most dangerous. Later versions are more solid but more drawish .

[@TheDrewjustforyou]

@16:41, after hypothetical rook b8, why does rook d7 need to be played, wouldn't knight h7 be mate?

[@fergs1561]

Very reminiscent of Nezhmetdinov Chernikov

[@amosdraak3536]

Hey, can we see a chess game where Emanuel Lasker wins for a change? 😊 ☀️ I’ve been watching this channel for years and keep hoping to see one of his games (he’s not my #1 but he’s in my top 5) covered by Jerry. I’m maybe going into the Air Force so I hope to see that happen before I do. Don’t know why it has to take so long 😅 Unless Jerry is trying to pull an “Agadmator” if you know what I mean 😅😂😂

[@gmnotyet]

You said SF 17 sees QxNb4!! is a winning idea. How does SF 17 avoid this position?

[@damonm8204]

Holy !!

[@looinrims]

Does Leela ever do better on the opposite end of some of these weird openings ?

[@peace0freedom]

Why is 20 ..Nxe5 not even considered? What am I missing?

[@nimpichu3711]

18:04 what is the TCEC win rule?

[@heffalump111]

when both engines agree that the position is better for one side by some margin, usually +5 or 6 points of material, and this evaluation is maintained for 3 moves in a row, the game ends in favor of the side the engines think will win.

[@richardfredlund8846]

16:45 there's also Bg7#

[@Rspknlikeab0ssxd]

Have engines advanced significantly since this game was played? It's already difficult to follow games like this, so if the engines have gotten better, it could be more baffling to see those such games lol

[@liamcrichton2660]

Why can’t stock fish take on move 10?

[@aleratz]

567th!

[@roydavis7561]

Wassup Jerry, go browns.

[@rolfkarlsson276]

17:00 That's not only mate, but also winning the rook!

[@chessmaster3225]

I expected stockfish to play a better game than this

[@se_eikeboom6891]

I found the queen sac in the equation that three minor pieces would dominate the queen on the dark squares. It was impossible to remove without losing loads of material what eventually happened. It does make sense mathematically.

[@JacksonHorschel]

Where can I buy an indian

[@gideonmoyo1037]

Chess is too advanced! Only Fischer, Tal, Carlsen, Kasparov and AI engines could figure this out

[@hopscotchchamp8282]

SPOILER BLOCKER

[@liamwickins9450]

94% accuracy yet still crushed!

[@maxcoy1771]

accuracy is determined by a computer's evaluation of the moves so its not a great metric when two engines are playing. If anything, that 6% difference is what led leela to winning the game

[@exponentmantissa5598]

Accuracy is relative, 94% based accuracy on which engine's evaluation? According to Stockfish it was playing with 100% accuracy. Accuracy is a metric that is dependent on the engine, the computational resources and time. Put a position that a normal engine thinks is 100% onto a supercomputer and let it run for a week and you will see the accuracy plummet.

[@coolbeans8682]

first

[@zwischendurundmoll3968]

Schuggus

[@UnknownUser-j3n]

Sort of comparable to real life. Those minor pieces are like the common people, when they unite they can topple big wigs.

[@Entheos84]

Nooooo, I am not first 🤦‍♂

[@dylanpthomas]

I was first once lol

[@Entheos84]

@@dylanpthomas One day man, one day. 😁

[@coolbeans8682]

your time will come, son!

[@Entheos84]

@@coolbeans8682 Until that day 💪

[@sudhirchauhan2154]

Who decides the inaccuracies of the game? Stockfish. And stockfish beaten by LC0. Stockfish found 5 inaccuracies in itself. If stockfish decides the inaccuracies then it must know the best move. Why did stockfish play inaccuracies? After watching the chess engine games I feel like GMs are only beginners. Chess is a far far more complicated thing. Even chess engines get beaten after a few years by other chess engines. GMs pretend that they are understanding the deep calculations of chess engines but they don't 😂. GMs don't want to get humiliated by accepting that they are only beginners. 😂

[@gugumakangume6449]

this comment is a whole lot of nothing, get a hobby

[@saudude2174]

@@gugumakangume6449 He just stated simple facts. You're angry because you love fanboying over your favourite GMs xD

[@bluecocacola]

which GM are you talking about? Every GM that talked about chess engines always say engines are far superior than humans 😅