x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Stockfish dethroned

  • #181

    This is non-sense.  Until Alpha Zero's algorithm can be run on a machine without proprietary processors so that is can play Stock Fish 9 (The current strongest engine) on equal machines, we are comparing apples to orangutans.  Plus I would give Stock Fish 9 a book created by playing Stock Fish 9 at fix ply 31 or better against a large database of computer competition games, like can be found through http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/ .  That would be a better comparison to what Alpha Zero is doing.  My money is on Stock Fish 9.  Until then this is all just propaganda hype for Project Deep Thought.

  • #182

    a0 is neural net. It can run on normal PC but that would be just stupid. It could run on normal PC with couple of GPU's reasonably. But normal PC is just hopeless in NN calculation

  • #183

    I wouldn’t say a normal PC is hopeless. For Go it works really well even without a fast GPU or any GPU at all. It is not enough to win against the top professional players, and in chess it would not win against Stockfish, but maybe it plays more interesting? At least it can learn different styles and so be a nice and funny player to play with. It can have multiple NN of different strength, and it can be play more human like games.

     

    There is some research to make NN smaller by removing the less important neurones. Maybe there is a progress from two sides: the hardware becomes faster and more specialised, and the NN becomes smaller or more efficient.

     

    I think in some years it will be possible to buy AI cards. (There are already NVIDIA cards having TPUs, but they are a little bit expensive.)

  • #184
    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • #185

    So what are we basically saying here...Stockfish 9 and SF 9+ WASM is still the best engine we can use to analyze and prepare?

  • #186
    Godeka wrote:

    I wouldn’t say a normal PC is hopeless. For Go it works really well even without a fast GPU or any GPU at all. It is not enough to win against the top professional players, and in chess it would not win against Stockfish, but maybe it plays more interesting? At least it can learn different styles and so be a nice and funny player to play with. It can have multiple NN of different strength, and it can be play more human like games.

     

    There is some research to make NN smaller by removing the less important neurones. Maybe there is a progress from two sides: the hardware becomes faster and more specialised, and the NN becomes smaller or more efficient.

     

    I think in some years it will be possible to buy AI cards. (There are already NVIDIA cards having TPUs, but they are a little bit expensive.)

     No there aren't. There are Nvidia GPUs, which start at a few hundred dollars which will outperform CPUs for AI. The majority are around the same value in terms of computing power per cost.

  • #187

    NVIDIA Volta which is expected to be available this year has TPU cores.

  • #188

    The Volta microarchitecture is the next generation of Nvidia GPUs. It includes a type of functionality it calls tensor processing, but the term "TPU" has only ever been used for google's hardware that is only available as a cloud service, so your statement is an imprecise use of terminology.

    The distinction between GPU and TPU is more a matter of where it comes from than what it can do, as GPUs can do a great deal more than the graphics processing after which they are named and for which they were mainly marketed until recently, and it is clear that Volta is aimed at competing with google's hardware for AI. The extra power of the device probably takes it beyond what even the keenest gamer could seriously take advantage (once an immersive environment reaches a certain level of detail, human vision is not going to benefit from taking it any further!)

  • #189

    One big advantage of TPU is that is has low resolution floating point. As there is no need for high presicission on NN. This make Google TPU more power efficient. Not any faster, just uses less power

  • #190
    I thought the headline should have read, “Google supercomputer beats PC in chess.”

    I’d like to see AlphaZero playing Stockfish on equivalent hardware.
  • #191

    This has been even on this thread several times. NN was trained by supet computer. Game was not PLAYED on super computer. 4-TPU is far from supercomputer really-really far.  Similar computing power could be achieved with a low power desktop with 2-3 top line GPU cards.  Cost of such system would be comparable 32-core machine. We do not know what HW was used by stockfish but 64 threads does imply 32 cores 

  • #192
    DavidForthoffer wrote:
    I thought the headline should have read, “Google supercomputer beats PC in chess.”

    I’d like to see AlphaZero playing Stockfish on equivalent hardware.

    I'd like to see a Eurofighter running on the engine from a Porsche. Actually, I wouldn't because that would be as silly as AlphaZero running on a PC. The system was not developed to do so.

    As for running Stockfish on a TPU, it hasn't been done. No-one has written the code to do so, and it is not clear that it could. If someone wants to, the hardware is available in the google cloud, and there's even some time for free available.

    Until then, I would say AlphaZero has achieved the highest performance seen for an unrestricted chess agent.

  • #193

    It is harder for chess to go further since it is one notch below Go as a computing endeavor. Even the chess engine authors prefer to apply their talents to Go (Giraffe's author joined Deepmind, while sjeng's author is behind LeelaZero).

  • #194

    It is notable that the relative performance achieved by AlphaZero was stupendously higher on a relative scale than that in chess: it was many hundreds of points above human performance. Part of this is that go is always a decisive game - no draws - and part of it is that it is more complex and offers for scope for AlphaZero's power.

Top

Online Now