Like Morphy and Fischer Alpha Zero is done.

Sort:
RMChess1954
btickler wrote:
RMChess1954 wrote:

Ermm, there is nothing in this article that makes your OP any more or less correct.  It's just a more in-depth article that talks about things we already know from the various threads (here and elsewhere) we've seen.  I could have written this article myself.

There's no denying that AlphaZero's machine learning is powerful...I said myself years ago that the "next step" in engines would be to stop using human valuations and bootstrap their own valuations via engine-to-engine play.  But...none of that matters, because this controversy is not about AlphaZero, it's about the DeepMind team jumping the gun with dubious claims and questionable methodology.  

" It’s very unlikely that Google will be interested in progressing the chess project any further—it will be setting its sights on more challenging and worthwhile problems." Does support my OP. Also other similar statements in the article. 

RMChess1954
btickler wrote:
RMChess1954 wrote:

Ermm, there is nothing in this article that makes your OP any more or less correct.  It's just a more in-depth article that talks about things we already know from the various threads (here and elsewhere) we've seen.  I could have written this article myself.

There's no denying that AlphaZero's machine learning is powerful...I said myself years ago that the "next step" in engines would be to stop using human valuations and bootstrap their own valuations via engine-to-engine play.  But...none of that matters, because this controversy is not about AlphaZero, it's about the DeepMind team jumping the gun with dubious claims and questionable methodology.  

Ermm, here is another "If you’re still thinking about the size of Stockfish’s hash table, you’re really missing the point of what’s happened. Put it this way: AlphaZero’s achievement would have been only a shade less amazing had it instead lost to Stockfish by a similar score.

DiogenesDue
RMChess1954 wrote:

Ermm, here is another "If you’re still thinking about the size of Stockfish’s hash table, you’re really missing the point of what’s happened. Put it this way: AlphaZero’s achievement would have been only a shade less amazing had it instead lost to Stockfish by a similar score.

Lol, exactly, so why did they feel the need to futz around?  I guess you don't understand my position, or you wouldn't be buttressing it up wink.png.

DiogenesDue
RMChess1954 wrote:

" It’s very unlikely that Google will be interested in progressing the chess project any further—it will be setting its sights on more challenging and worthwhile problems." Does support my OP. Also other similar statements in the article. 

Perhaps you missed the part where this statement is the article author's opinion, and no more valid than anyone posting here? 

"It must be true, I read it on a Blog!"

RMChess1954
btickler wrote:
RMChess1954 wrote:

" It’s very unlikely that Google will be interested in progressing the chess project any further—it will be setting its sights on more challenging and worthwhile problems." Does support my OP. Also other similar statements in the article. 

Perhaps you missed the part where this statement is the article author's opinion, and no more valid than anyone posting here? 

"It must be true, I read it on a Blog!"

The guy obviously knew what he was talking about. You not so much. So if my OP was wrong where are the next round of games? 

Martin_Stahl
RMChess1954 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RMChess1954 wrote:

" It’s very unlikely that Google will be interested in progressing the chess project any further—it will be setting its sights on more challenging and worthwhile problems." Does support my OP. Also other similar statements in the article. 

Perhaps you missed the part where this statement is the article author's opinion, and no more valid than anyone posting here? 

"It must be true, I read it on a Blog!"

The guy obviously knew what he was talking about. You not so much. So if my OP was wrong where are the next round of games? 

 

DeepMind is an active research group and just looking at their blog, they have a lot going on. The paper they published included a number of games, for examples, and the results of the rest, inluding the results of the specfic opening matches.

 

You may be right that they won't release the rest of the games. Or they may do so in the future.

 

My guess they will at some point but I'm sure it is very low on their propriety list. Maybe someone is hoping to write a book with analysis on them grin.png

DiogenesDue
RMChess1954 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RMChess1954 wrote:

" It’s very unlikely that Google will be interested in progressing the chess project any further—it will be setting its sights on more challenging and worthwhile problems." Does support my OP. Also other similar statements in the article. 

Perhaps you missed the part where this statement is the article author's opinion, and no more valid than anyone posting here? 

"It must be true, I read it on a Blog!"

The guy obviously knew what he was talking about. You not so much. So if my OP was wrong where are the next round of games? 

As we've already established (or rather, I have stated, and you have read but then forgotten forthwith), you won't see them until AlphaZero gets better, to the point where it can wipe the floor with Stockfish in a public match with real settings. 

The article actually provides yet another reason why the publicity stunt/test went the way it did...there were severely diminishing returns on the machine learning past the first 4 hours (another 5 hours producing almost no further improvement), so...easy enough to imagine that they ran the first tests with Stockfish at "normal" settings, lost or did not win very convincingly, determined that AlphaZero was not going to improve that much in the near term, then fudged the settings to produce the press release they wanted (quite possibly due to over-promising on what those results would be...which is probably how they got the TPU cycles allocated in the first place).

From the article:

Why didn’t Google use the other 5,060 TPUs as well? Probably to show that AlphaZero doesn’t need massive hardware to run effectively.

Just proof that the article author is not up to snuff on computers.  There is no way they would have needed the full 5000K+ TPUs to play Stockfish...so the limitation was not to "prove" anything...it was because, completely unlike Stockfish, AlphaZero doesn't need to search 30-40 plys in each position, that work was done in advance and produced the valuations that Alpha Zero uses to play chess; the heavy work was "preloaded" in this process.  If AlphaZero had needed to seach 70K positions/second the way Stockfish does, then they could/would have used more TPUs, but they didn't need them once the machine learning took place.  This is exactly why the touted difference in the much lower number of positions AlphaZero evaluated existed.  Please tell me you get this...

The rest of the article's opinions are just as suspect.  If you think that the author "clearly knew what he was talking about", then you don't know jack about computers either.  

RMChess1954
btickler wrote:
RMChess1954 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RMChess1954 wrote:

" It’s very unlikely that Google will be interested in progressing the chess project any further—it will be setting its sights on more challenging and worthwhile problems." Does support my OP. Also other similar statements in the article. 

Perhaps you missed the part where this statement is the article author's opinion, and no more valid than anyone posting here? 

"It must be true, I read it on a Blog!"

The guy obviously knew what he was talking about. You not so much. So if my OP was wrong where are the next round of games? 

As we've already established (or rather, I have stated, and you have read but then forgotten forthwith), you won't see them until AlphaZero gets better, to the point where it can wipe the floor with Stockfish in a public match with real settings. 

The article actually provides yet another reason why the publicity stunt/test went the way it did...there were severely diminishing returns on the machine learning past the first 4 hours (another 5 hours producing almost no further improvement), so...easy enough to imagine that they ran the first tests with Stockfish at "normal" settings, lost or did not win very convincingly, determined that AlphaZero was not going to improve that much in the near term, then fudged the settings to produce the press release they wanted (quite possibly due to over-promising on what those results would be...which is probably how they got the TPU cycles allocated in the first place).

From the article:

Why didn’t Google use the other 5,060 TPUs as well? Probably to show that AlphaZero doesn’t need massive hardware to run effectively.

Just proof that the article author is not up to snuff on computers.  There is no way they would have needed the full 5000K+ TPUs to play Stockfish...so the limitation was not to "prove" anything...it was because, completely unlike Stockfish, AlphaZero doesn't need to search 30-40 plys in each position, that work was done in advance and produced the valuations that Alpha Zero uses to play chess; the heavy work was "preloaded" in this process.  If AlphaZero had needed to seach 70K positions/second the way Stockfish does, then they could/would have used more TPUs, but they didn't need them once the machine learning took place.  This is exactly why the touted difference in the much lower number of positions AlphaZero evaluated existed.  Please tell me you get this...

The rest of the article's opinions are just as suspect.  If you think that the author "clearly knew what he was talking about", then you don't know jack about computers either.  

You said there was nothing in the post supporting my OP. So I gave two quotes. Showing you didn't read or understand the blog. Then you attack the blog and it's author. Reminds me of someone else. Also your long winded replys show you realy need to get a life, and/or mental help. Now you can have the last word, because you are boring. So I don't want to come back and read any more of your rants.

Die_Schanze

I've read an interview with Johannes Zwanzger, PhD in Mathematics, 2200 Elo chess player AND Computer chess world champion 2015 with his Engine "Jonny" about that match. Its only available in german language. Here the most important things: He refers to some other guy called Remi Colum who is expert in that used hardware and former chess programmer. AlphaZero played with 4 TPUs, each of them has a performance like a NVIDIA V100, which is available for about 10.000 Euros.  Carlsen and Co. could by such hardware.

 

And he says that the stockfish community already started the first MCTS tests and that they have the communities calculation power to train a neuronal network should not be underestimated. We all could have a compiled alpha zero comparable engine on our desktops not so far in the future.

DiogenesDue
RMChess1954 wrote:

You said there was nothing in the post supporting my OP. So I gave two quotes. Showing you didn't read or understand the blog. Then you attack the blog and it's author. Reminds me of someone else. Also your long winded replys show you realy need to get a life, and/or mental help. Now you can have the last word, because you are boring. So I don't want to come back and read any more of your rants.

What you gave are 2 quotes from the author of an article/blog entry (a seemingly self-appointed article, I might add), not from the DeepMind team or anyone else of consequence or authority on the matters involved...showing you don't understand what "supporting an argument" actually means.   You might as well have quoted 2 of Elroch's posts and told me that was your proof.  He seems to meet all your rigorous criteria, i.e. "he seems to know what he is talking about".

As for telling me not to post, you do have the option of blocking me, but really, if you intend this thread to be a discussion of the topic at hand as opposed to your personal soapbox and echo chamber, then man up.

Then there's this...see if you can catch the hypocrisy:

"Then you attack the blog and it's author"

Followed exactly one sentence later with

"Also your long winded replys show you realy need to get a life, and/or mental help" (spellings left as-is)

BradleyFarms

Not totally true. More so power then anything. At best though they could generate a larger influx of income by directing their resources on other projects. Such, mater accelerators. For a computer, or A.I would have infinitely more comprehension in anything and everything compared to a human. That is unfathomable, it's mystifying how no one seems concerned with such a power.

RMChess1954

By now everyone agrees with my title for this topic. There can be no doubt A0 has gone on to greater things. Chess was just a stepping stone. A benchmark. Come on admit it. 

Elroch

So has it gone on to practice law or to be a crazy person?

RMChess1954
Elroch wrote:

So has it gone on to practice law or to be a crazy person?

LOL Yes. It has gone on. 

EscherehcsE
RMChess1954 wrote:

By now everyone agrees with my title for this topic. There can be no doubt A0 has gone on to greater things. Chess was just a stepping stone. A benchmark. Come on admit it. 

Alpha Zero lives on in the bits of Leela Chess Zero. Just sayin'.

RMChess1954

Okay unlike you I will admit when I am wrong. AlphaZero returned! Returned to crush Stockfish even worse and under all circumstances. AlphaZero is the strongest chess player on earth. Will it return? Who could it play? If Stockfish cannot compete who then? Maybe just publish self play games from time to time. What do you think?

mfelzien
MickinMD wrote:

Synthetic Chemistry is almost as much art as science: I wonder if AI will make much progress there, except for tweaking already known syntheses.

For example, I had to make some unusual orthoesters, an unusual class of compounds to begin with, and the procedure required an acid catalyst.  But my work failed and I finally realized it was the water that was part of the acids I was using that was ruining the reaction. Even the very tiny bit of water in even near-100% pure sulfuric acid was enough to mess it up.

Eventually, I thought of the resin pellets used to make hard water softer, nearly distilled: they are plastic, acidic, and have no water.  So I heated a bunch of resin pellets in an oven to drive off any last trace of water, dumped the pellets in the reaction flask, and in a couple of days I became the first person to ever lay eyes on some cyclic orthoesters as I distilled it, drop-by-drop, from the reaction vessel.

How do you get AI to think of that?

This type of work is usually the realm of chemical engineering or chemistry.  There is always the human in the process... "observing", "assessing" and making "meaning".  How did A0 learn the rules of chess, how would it learn the rules of chemical engineering.  That's what is really interesting and scary.  I think meaningful sensory datum and our collective believe in it, with "free agency" are what makes humans.  I chose chess because, I knew the computers had won already, but they can't assault my interest and feelings for it.  That's mine.  Logic.. meh.. That can be programmed.  Meaning.. meh.. That ... is to be determined... or can't be.  

 

my 2cents.

quadibloc

Whether or not Alpha Chess Zero makes another appearance in the future, I don't know. It certainly is true the DeepMind team is primarily interested in more practical applications of AI.

But, as noted, due to the Leela Chess Zero effort, even if Google/Alphabet's program won't be active itself, it is likely to have a permanent effect on computing.

Still, is Gary Kasparov right when he echoed the sentiment that Chess is the Drosophila melanogaster of AI? Or is Alpha Zero playing chess mostly a publicity stunt?

After all, dumb brute-force chess programs already play pretty well. Go, on the other hand, was much harder for computers to master, and it was making a Go-playing program that could beat the human world champion that was the initial achievement of the Alpha Zero team. So maybe that challenge provided them with more insights into AI, and having it also play chess is just to impress a Western audience.

congrandolor

Breaking news: Deepmind staff is in shock, AlphaZero has just told them that it want to quit chess and start writing poetry.

RMChess1954
happy.png 
congrandolor wrote:

Breaking news: Deepmind staff is in shock, AlphaZero has just told them that it want to quit chess and start writing poetry.