Read this and admit I was correct. https://www.chess.com/article/view/whats-inside-alphazeros-brain
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."
Read this and admit I was correct. https://www.chess.com/article/view/whats-inside-alphazeros-brain
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.