Answers.Body: <p>Assuming Stockfish level 8 is full strength Stockfish, it's <em>possible</em> to beat it but <em>extremely unlikely</em>.</p>
  
  <p>In very rare cases, Stockfish will incorrectly evaluate a complicated position, unless given a minute or two to think. If a human were to get in such a position in a 3 0 game, Stockfish could make a fatal blunder.</p>
  
  <p>However, the chances of the human making a mistake first is far greater.</p>
  
  <p>Making the time control longer than 3 0 favors Stockfish, since it has more time to think if it's misevaluating something.</p>
  
  <p>If Stockfish level 8 is only 2200-2400 (I've read this on some online sources), then beating it is more realistic.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-20T02:30:34.137Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-06-20T02:30:34.137Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.Body: <p>IMHO playing against Stockfish level eight is a lost cause when playing against its full 16 quad core processors and basically unlimited flash storage, no matter the time constraints. Magnus Carlson stated a couple of years ago that he always lost against that computer program. The lichess version is but a shadow of its real self.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-10-14T17:13:49.960Z
Answers.Text: While it is true that Stockfish (and any engine, afaik) can be stronger or weaker based on the hardware on which it runs, I don't understand what you're referring to when you say "...against its full 16 quad core processors and basically unlimited flash storage."
  
  Stockfish has no inherent CPU ("full 16 quad core processors") nor memory ("basically unlimited flash storage").  It's a program that *runs* on hardware, not a piece of hardware in itself.
  
  What are you referring to here?
Answers.UserDisplayName: MikeMitchell
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-20T01:04:56.273Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-06-20T01:04:56.273Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: NorEastern
Answers.Body: <p>Yes, it is possibile and not so unlikely under two conditions:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>the human is quite strong</li>
  <li>lichess is browsed via mobile (not on a desktop pc) </li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>Please note that the elaboration is not done serverside, but clientside.
  That means that it uses (part of) the resources of the hardware you are using when browsing lichess (!).</p>
  
  <p>In other terms if you browse on a mobile the engine will be weaker.</p>
  
  <p>Just today I drew a fast game (I’m near 2300 elo and I run it on a Samsung S8 hw).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-15T14:50:37.917Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-05-15T15:14:36.883Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-05-15T15:14:36.883Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user19107
Answers.Body: <p>Stockfish 8 <strong>CANNOT</strong> be beaten by a human in such fast time controls. Even strong GMs will face immense difficulty. It is definitely not impossible but it is highly improbable.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-24T12:51:55.190Z
Answers.Text: i meant SF level 8
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aravindakshan.Su
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-24T14:02:29.903Z
Answers.Text: I think fast time controls are the only way to beat it. Similarly to how LeelaChess got beaten in an ultra bullet to Andrew Tang, but I think Stockfish might have an opening table, or an equivalent recursive filter, so maybe that might be tough too.
Answers.UserDisplayName: TheAutomaton
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-25T12:24:01.033Z
Answers.Text: I beat stockfish in ultrabullet (after losing about 200 games). Game Link: https://lichess.org/f6BlPBCMs68t
Answers.UserDisplayName: Wais Kamal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-25T20:47:11.470Z
Answers.Text: There was a bug in the engine that allowed it to be beaten: https://lichess.org/3Q0f9dcj/. If the engine played that line, it would make a mistake on move 12.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ericw31415
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-27T11:01:20.437Z
Answers.Text: These are not mistakes made by the actual stockfish, but the stockfish simulated by lichess. In my opinion an engine should never lose on time.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aravindakshan.Su
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-05-25T01:48:17.233Z
Answers.Text: @Aravindakshan.Su But the question is about lichess Stockfish.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ericw31415
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-05-27T02:25:59.910Z
Answers.Text: @ericw31415: In any case an engine shouldn't lose on time. Lichess should try and improve their Stockfish 8 simulation.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aravindakshan.Su
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-05-27T02:52:22.443Z
Answers.Text: @Aravindakshan.Su Lichess has premoves so the human can outspeed an engine spending time in between moves.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ericw31415
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-08-08T16:43:16.853Z
Answers.Text: @WaisKamal, did you beat Stockfish on time?
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Ni
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-08-20T09:23:24.203Z
Answers.Text: @ericw31415: Even SF10+ on Lichess analysis fails to see the mistake at the default setting. But it is not a bug. Rather, SF simply does not see the error until its reported search depth reaches 26 (which of course may be more than the actual depth needed to obtain the correct answer). Anyway, Aravindakshan, Lichess runs in your browser and was already optimized greatly, so in some sense they cannot "improve their SF simulation" as the bottleneck is your browser. Browsers are built to handle websites, not run chess engines.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-08-20T09:31:18.333Z
Answers.Text: @ericw31415: By the way, it's hard to tell whether that error is due to [Lichess Level 8 deliberately making a mistake there](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/35317), or due to its search depth not being high enough to see the mistake. Edit: Lol! Lichess SF has some sort of caching; after I opened the analysis again it now knows it is an error even at lower reported search depth.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-24T12:51:08.863Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-04-24T12:51:08.863Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aravindakshan.Su
Answers.Body: <p>I used LiChess's <a href="https://lichess.org/games/search" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Advanced Search</a> feature to search for games with Stockfish level 8 playing blitz.  Stockfish has lost against bots multiple times, but <strong>I did not find any verifiable losses against humans</strong>.</p>
  
  <p>Some wins by <a href="https://lichess.org/@/Demolisher95" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Demolisher95</a> (<a href="https://lichess.org/g3ZtQDKU" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a>; <a href="https://lichess.org/SjKNgAEz" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2</a>; <a href="https://lichess.org/Ir7leP3i" rel="nofollow noreferrer">3</a>) look like plausible human wins to me, with a kind of anti-Stockfish style, but the account states it uses "computer assistance", which makes these wins dubious.</p>
  
  <p>There's a bunch of draws by strong players, e.g. Hungarian <a href="https://lichess.org/@/Pap-G" rel="nofollow noreferrer">GM Gyula Pap</a> achieved <a href="https://lichess.org/j3e9g7Pg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this draw</a> (3+2 time control); <a href="https://lichess.org/@/vsepro100" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a Ukranian IM</a> achieved <a href="https://lichess.org/Mopo5sPt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this draw</a> (5+0 time control); <a href="https://lichess.org/@/opperwezen" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a Dutch IM</a> achieved <a href="https://lichess.org/JS1wk7dq" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this draw</a> (5+3 time control); Russian <a href="https://lichess.org/@/amaidel" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FM Anton Maidel</a> achieved <a href="https://lichess.org/ZBrABP9o" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this draw</a> (5+3 time control); and so on.  These draws were accompanied by multiple losses.</p>
  
  <p>[Some wins by <a href="https://lichess.org/@/thinkabit" rel="nofollow noreferrer">thinkabit</a> (<a href="https://lichess.org/nTWR6ij7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a>; <a href="https://lichess.org/abWkwNl4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2</a>; <a href="https://lichess.org/LWdLCeS7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">3</a>; <a href="https://lichess.org/mXvZWWI4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">4</a>), <a href="https://lichess.org/hGaKenCZ" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Widyana</a>, <a href="https://lichess.org/5EZNXXoD" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SexyChessMen</a>, <a href="https://lichess.org/fQvPWB2p" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Amir_King1</a>, and <a href="https://lichess.org/puDoGcJU" rel="nofollow noreferrer">caballito64</a> are almost certainly with computer "assistance", so I disregard these wins.]</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-15T19:56:04.573Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-05-15T19:56:04.573Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rebecca J. Stones
Answers.Body: <p>This book lists blitz/rapid games won by a human against Stockfish:</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B0768G8R2C" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/</a></p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>My winning games against Stockfish and Komodo. This is for real. I
    have played over 50 thousand engine games, of which more than 10
    thousand against Stockfish, and a large number against Komodo, so I
    have my fair share of wins. Read the book to learn what openings are
    suitable to handle the machines, how to impose your style of play, and
    how to approach the game in a tactically relevant way. The games are
    amply commented and diagrammed. You thought competition between humans
    and machines has already ended? Not at all, it has just started!</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-22T01:13:23.353Z
Answers.Text: Those games are fake and made-up. Simple Google would have shown that.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-21T19:05:57.570Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-06-21T19:05:57.570Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: MichalRyszardWojcik
Body: <p>I've watched a couple of games where people play against stockfish level 8 on lichess, and they pretty much lose all the time. Is it possible for someone to beat a level 8 computer in any time between 3+0 and 15+0?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-03-03T08:22:56.890Z
Comments.Text: The term "Stockfish level 8 computer" doesn't make much sense, maybe you just mean that the engine is set to level 8? :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Myungjin Hyun
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-03-03T18:31:55.890Z
Comments.Text: yeah, the engine is set to level 8, @HarryWeasley
Comments.UserDisplayName: David Ni
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-03-21T18:32:14.463Z
Comments.Text: @user1583209 SF level 8 is just the default stockfish. The question is about asking anybody could beat SF at fast time control without cheating. Highly unlikely.
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-24T13:26:27.537Z
Comments.Text: @user1583209 I'm sure SF on lichess is just running SF on your browser. Lichess people don't code chess engine.
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-04-24T19:06:44.497Z
Comments.Text: @SmallChess As far as I understand they do modify stockfish for (at least) some chess variants. Not an expert on this, but I could imagine that some modification is necessary for running SF in a browser.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-15T22:26:06.923Z
Comments.Text: It's possible but difficult.  I have seen a strong chess steamer beat Stockfish level 8 after a few tries using anti engine strategies.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Qudit
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-24T21:11:33.607Z
Comments.Text: Jonathan Schranz beat Level 8 Stockfish on numerous occasions in the 3+0 format.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Max
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-07-15T12:46:48.447Z
Comments.Text: Schrantz seems to have done it again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8hkXKHWnhw&ab_channel=JonathanSchrantz
Comments.UserDisplayName: Stefan Reich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-08-12T06:12:53.977Z
Comments.Text: @StefanReich: It means nothing. Firstly, as user19107 already pointed out, Lichess SF runs in your browser, so the slower your computer the lousier it plays. Secondly, and more importantly here, [Lichess SF deliberately makes mistakes at random](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/35317), so you will never really know whether you win against the Lichess AI because you are better than its purported rating or because it just threw the game away at some random point.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Tags: <stockfish><lichess>
Title: Is it really possible to beat a stockfish level 8 computer in any time that is between 3+0 and 15+0?
ThreadText: # Is it really possible to beat a stockfish level 8 computer in any time that is between 3+0 and 15+0?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-03-03)
  
  I've watched a couple of games where people play against stockfish level 8 on lichess, and they pretty much lose all the time. Is it possible for someone to beat a level 8 computer in any time between 3+0 and 15+0?
  
  **Tags:** stockfish, lichess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: The term "Stockfish level 8 computer" doesn't make much sense, maybe you just mean that the engine is set to level 8? :)  
  > **username_0**: yeah, the engine is set to level 8, @HarryWeasley  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 SF level 8 is just the default stockfish. The question is about asking anybody could beat SF at fast time control without cheating. Highly unlikely.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 I'm sure SF on lichess is just running SF on your browser. Lichess people don't code chess engine.  
  > **username_3**: @username_2 As far as I understand they do modify stockfish for (at least) some chess variants. Not an expert on this, but I could imagine that some modification is necessary for running SF in a browser.  
  > **username_4**: It's possible but difficult.  I have seen a strong chess steamer beat Stockfish level 8 after a few tries using anti engine strategies.  
  > **username_5**: Jonathan Schranz beat Level 8 Stockfish on numerous occasions in the 3+0 format.  
  > **username_6**: Schrantz seems to have done it again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8hkXKHWnhw&ab_channel=JonathanSchrantz  
  > **username_7**: @StefanReich: It means nothing. Firstly, as username_11 already pointed out, Lichess SF runs in your browser, so the slower your computer the lousier it plays. Secondly, and more importantly here, [Lichess SF deliberately makes mistakes at random](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/35317), so you will never really know whether you win against the Lichess AI because you are better than its purported rating or because it just threw the game away at some random point.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 6 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2018-06-20. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  Assuming Stockfish level 8 is full strength Stockfish, it's *possible* to beat it but *extremely unlikely*.
  
  In very rare cases, Stockfish will incorrectly evaluate a complicated position, unless given a minute or two to think. If a human were to get in such a position in a 3 0 game, Stockfish could make a fatal blunder.
  
  However, the chances of the human making a mistake first is far greater.
  
  Making the time control longer than 3 0 favors Stockfish, since it has more time to think if it's misevaluating something.
  
  If Stockfish level 8 is only 2200-2400 (I've read this on some online sources), then beating it is more realistic.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2018-06-20. Score: 3
  
  IMHO playing against Stockfish level eight is a lost cause when playing against its full 16 quad core processors and basically unlimited flash storage, no matter the time constraints. Magnus Carlson stated a couple of years ago that he always lost against that computer program. The lichess version is but a shadow of its real self.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: While it is true that Stockfish (and any engine, afaik) can be stronger or weaker based on the hardware on which it runs, I don't understand what you're referring to when you say "...against its full 16 quad core processors and basically unlimited flash storage."  Stockfish has no inherent CPU ("full 16 quad core processors") nor memory ("basically unlimited flash storage").  It's a program that *runs* on hardware, not a piece of hardware in itself.  What are you referring to here?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2019-05-15. Score: 2
  
  Yes, it is possibile and not so unlikely under two conditions:
  
  1. the human is quite strong
  2. lichess is browsed via mobile (not on a desktop pc)
  
  Please note that the elaboration is not done serverside, but clientside.
  That means that it uses (part of) the resources of the hardware you are using when browsing lichess (!).
  
  In other terms if you browse on a mobile the engine will be weaker.
  
  Just today I drew a fast game (I’m near 2300 elo and I run it on a Samsung S8 hw).
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2018-04-24. Score: 0
  
  Stockfish 8 **CANNOT** be beaten by a human in such fast time controls. Even strong GMs will face immense difficulty. It is definitely not impossible but it is highly improbable.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_12**: i meant SF level 8  
  > **username_13**: I think fast time controls are the only way to beat it. Similarly to how LeelaChess got beaten in an ultra bullet to Andrew Tang, but I think Stockfish might have an opening table, or an equivalent recursive filter, so maybe that might be tough too.  
  > **username_14**: I beat stockfish in ultrabullet (after losing about 200 games). Game Link: https://lichess.org/f6BlPBCMs68t  
  > **username_15**: There was a bug in the engine that allowed it to be beaten: https://lichess.org/3Q0f9dcj/. If the engine played that line, it would make a mistake on move 12.  
  > **username_12**: These are not mistakes made by the actual stockfish, but the stockfish simulated by lichess. In my opinion an engine should never lose on time.  
  > **username_15**: @username_12 But the question is about lichess Stockfish.  
  > **username_12**: @username_15: In any case an engine shouldn't lose on time. Lichess should try and improve their Stockfish 8 simulation.  
  > **username_15**: @username_12 Lichess has premoves so the human can outspeed an engine spending time in between moves.  
  > **username_0**: @WaisKamal, did you beat Stockfish on time?  
  > **username_7**: @username_15: Even SF10+ on Lichess analysis fails to see the mistake at the default setting. But it is not a bug. Rather, SF simply does not see the error until its reported search depth reaches 26 (which of course may be more than the actual depth needed to obtain the correct answer). Anyway, Aravindakshan, Lichess runs in your browser and was already optimized greatly, so in some sense they cannot "improve their SF simulation" as the bottleneck is your browser. Browsers are built to handle websites, not run chess engines.  
  > **username_7**: @username_15: By the way, it's hard to tell whether that error is due to [Lichess Level 8 deliberately making a mistake there](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/35317), or due to its search depth not being high enough to see the mistake. Edit: Lol! Lichess SF has some sort of caching; after I opened the analysis again it now knows it is an error even at lower reported search depth.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_16 on 2019-05-15. Score: 0
  
  I used LiChess's [Advanced Search](https://lichess.org/games/search) feature to search for games with Stockfish level 8 playing blitz. Stockfish has lost against bots multiple times, but **I did not find any verifiable losses against humans**.
  
  Some wins by [Demolisher95](https://lichess.org/@/Demolisher95) ([1](https://lichess.org/g3ZtQDKU); [2](https://lichess.org/SjKNgAEz); [3](https://lichess.org/Ir7leP3i)) look like plausible human wins to me, with a kind of anti-Stockfish style, but the account states it uses "computer assistance", which makes these wins dubious.
  
  There's a bunch of draws by strong players, e.g. Hungarian [GM Gyula Pap](https://lichess.org/@/Pap-G) achieved [this draw](https://lichess.org/j3e9g7Pg) (3+2 time control); [a Ukranian IM](https://lichess.org/@/vsepro100) achieved [this draw](https://lichess.org/Mopo5sPt) (5+0 time control); [a Dutch IM](https://lichess.org/@/opperwezen) achieved [this draw](https://lichess.org/JS1wk7dq) (5+3 time control); Russian [FM Anton Maidel](https://lichess.org/@/amaidel) achieved [this draw](https://lichess.org/ZBrABP9o) (5+3 time control); and so on. These draws were accompanied by multiple losses.
  
  [Some wins by [thinkabit](https://lichess.org/@/thinkabit) ([1](https://lichess.org/nTWR6ij7); [2](https://lichess.org/abWkwNl4); [3](https://lichess.org/LWdLCeS7); [4](https://lichess.org/mXvZWWI4)), [Widyana](https://lichess.org/hGaKenCZ), [SexyChessMen](https://lichess.org/5EZNXXoD), [Amir\_King1](https://lichess.org/fQvPWB2p), and [caballito64](https://lichess.org/puDoGcJU) are almost certainly with computer "assistance", so I disregard these wins.]
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_17 on 2018-06-21. Score: -2
  
  This book lists blitz/rapid games won by a human against Stockfish:
  
  [https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B0768G8R2C)
  
  > My winning games against Stockfish and Komodo. This is for real. I
  > have played over 50 thousand engine games, of which more than 10
  > thousand against Stockfish, and a large number against Komodo, so I
  > have my fair share of wins. Read the book to learn what openings are
  > suitable to handle the machines, how to impose your style of play, and
  > how to approach the game in a tactically relevant way. The games are
  > amply commented and diagrammed. You thought competition between humans
  > and machines has already ended? Not at all, it has just started!
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Those games are fake and made-up. Simple Google would have shown that.  
  
  ---
  
  