[scott_w]

Not really because it’s subjective to the level of player. What’s a blunder to a master player might only be an inaccuracy to a beginner. The same applies for higher levels of chess player. I’ve watched GothamChess say “I’ve no idea why <INSERT GM> made this move but it’s the only move,” then Hikaru Nakamura will rattle off a weird 8-move sequence to explain why it’s a major advantage despite no pieces being lost. Stockfish is a level above even Magnus if given enough depth.

[umanwizard]

> Stockfish is a level above even Magnus if given enough depth.

"a level" and "if given enough depth" are both underselling it. Stockfish running on a cheap phone with equal time for each side will beat Magnus 100 games in a row.

[jquery]

I believe it’s something like 500 elo points difference at this point between Magnus and Stockfish running on cheap hardware. Computers are so strong the only way to measure their strength is against other, weaker computers, and so on until you get to engines that are mere “grandmaster” strength.

[scott_w]

Bear in mind that, beyond the “top” elo ratings, that it’s purely an estimate of relative strength. The gap between a GM and me is far greater than the gap between a GM and Stockfish, even if the stated elo difference is the same.

By this I mean, you can give me a winning position against Magnus and I’ll still lose. Give a winning position to Magnus vs Stockfish and he might draw or even win.

[jquery]

True, what is considered a “winning” position is different at different elo levels. The better someone is, the smaller their mistakes are relative to perfect play.

I wish top players like Magnus would do more exhibition games against top computers. They don’t have to all start with equal material or an equal position.

[scott_w]

That’s fair, I was leaving wiggle room for things like being able to force the engine into doing stupid things like sacrifice all its pieces to avoid stalemate.