Mr. Spock beats the computer every time. And that's 3D chess, mind you.
Stockfish dethroned
Sort:
Dec 9, 2017
0
#83
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
I don't know why all best American chess players have non-English names?
Forget all about Alpha: just a media stunt.
Why would I be interested in a 2800 engine?
You mean what would be a 2800 engine if you handicapped it by giving it different hardware to that for which it was designed. Get over it!
Dec 9, 2017
0
#84
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Elroch wrote:
You seem to misunderstand some things: there was no chess knowledge being used: AlphaZero worked all this out for itself. Secondly, AlphaZero was about 100 Elo points weaker with only 1 second per move - equivalent to making its hardware slower than that used by Stockfish - so it might still have won (with a closer margin) without using the TPUs that google designed for general purpose neural networks. (It is great that they have done this: parallel matrix processing will be such a boon for demanding mathematical computing!). But more important to which is really the best program is that if Stockfish had 30 times more time per move (equivalent to speeding up its hardware) it would not have got much stronger (according to my extrapolation of the graphs).
You are wrong on all 3.
There was chess knowledge to start from, of course, they trained the opening on countless GM winning games. Is this no knowledge?
That is simply false. You claim falsehoods and provide no reference for it. Try reading the paper by DeepMind.
I am certain they had also at least psqt and piece values, but they don't acknowledge it officially.
You are sure, huh? Excuse me, but I will take more notice of people who are not just wildly guessing about a conspiracy. I understand the technology well enough to realise that they can do without such things. The easy bit is getting crude valuations (like the standard ones): the difficult thing is combining these with all the positional factors that allow you to better assess positions and come to different conclusions about which is the best move.
1s. per move with SF also having 1s., that is a big difference.
The 30 times more time test is equally valid for both, so not a proof for anything.
Oops, I got tired posting one and the same stuff and trying to convince mentally entrenched people.
In a year's time, you will be convinced.
In a year's time you will probably still have the facts wrong, but I won't.
"and now that chess is dead"
Now? Chess engines are better than humans since long ago. And why would it kill chess anyway?
Dec 9, 2017
0
#86
The strange thing is I like AlphaZero better than the normal engines because it learnt to play chess rather than being told how to play chess.
Dec 9, 2017
0
#87
pfren wrote:
chesstauren έγραψε:
Unless google release the details (time controls, CPU speeds etc...) I'm calling shenanigans.
All details have been released.
Stockfish was an old version (8) running with only 1 GB of RAM.
There is no doubt that AI if the future in chess, but smashing a crippled engine (too little RAM, no opening book) is not a proof of anything. You can rather call it another Google marketing trick.
You can add to that the silly time control used in the match.
Stockfish 8 is not an old version, it is last, I just visited their website. Although I agree that 1 GB of RAM is lowering its capability.
Dec 9, 2017
0
#88
mcris wrote:
pfren wrote:
chesstauren έγραψε:
Unless google release the details (time controls, CPU speeds etc...) I'm calling shenanigans.
All details have been released.
Stockfish was an old version (8) running with only 1 GB of RAM.
There is no doubt that AI if the future in chess, but smashing a crippled engine (too little RAM, no opening book) is not a proof of anything. You can rather call it another Google marketing trick.
You can add to that the silly time control used in the match.
Stockfish 8 is not an old version, it is last, I just visited their website. Although I agree that 1 GB of RAM is lowering its capability.
It was 1 GB hash table, not 1 GB RAM, and you mean possibly lowering its capability: there is not a monotone relationship. What is the most relevant data you have on this?
Dec 9, 2017
0
#89
btickler wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Your logic is fallacious.
Suppose you had applied it to the first computers that reached around 2800. You would say since current engines cannot get past 2800, it is impossible to get past 3400. But now current engines have exceeded 3400. The problem is you don't have any direct way of determining how close to perfection a player is.
[You also don't quite understand the Elo rating system. 400 points difference is not supposed to be a certain win: indeed no rating difference is a certain win. Rather the expected score gets nearer to 1 as the difference increases. If you had an engine which wiped out all current engines, its rating would continue to rise without upper bound (but slower and slower) as the computer kept slightly exceeding its expected score against existing players, even if these existing players were all limited to some level. It's rating could rise much faster if it beat higher rating opponents, but all wins help].
Ummm...you are aware that the elo rating system is a relative rating system and only measures how someone in a pool will fare against someone else in that pool, right?
Yes, I know that, but it is designed to be consistent, and is empirically roughly so.. i.e., on average if A, B and C have three ratings, all three of the differences give a good estimation of expected results.
Elo ratings are not tied to actual chess skill, nor to chess at all. If Elo ratings are based on chess games, they quantify RELATIVE chess skill. It is irrelevant that they can also be used for other games.
You can make a rating pool for almost any competitive endeavor using it. If only 5 year olds played chess, someone would still have Carlsen's rating eventually.
It is unlikely that the spread of standards of play of 5 year olds would be as large as the spread of standard of play of all chess players. So you would probably get a bell-shaped curve of lesser width, and no-one who was 1600 points above the average.
You are proving my point. When the first engines were 2800, it was impossible to have a 3600 rating...
It was not impossible, it had just not happened yet. If you took a 3600 rated engine and played it against the engines that existed at that time, it could eventually achieve 3600 (by winning virtually every game it played).
it took years and years to work it's way slowly up a few ratings points at a time...exactly the way I said that 5000 is impossible right now while the best engines are 3400.
You don't use the word impossible in the correct way. You misuse it to to mean what happens to have been done at a particular time. This stops it being the absolute that it is when used correctly.
At 400 ratings points difference the rate of increase slows to single ratings points...so....going from 3600 to 5000 at that rate would take how long? Every draw sends you tumbling back, of course. I understand the system just fine. Move along.
Yes, it would take a lot of games. Are you now saying it is "impossible" to play a lot of games?
If the Elo system works, a sufficient difference in ratings makes draws unlikely enough to allow the correct rating difference to be achieved after enough games.
Dec 9, 2017
0
#92
btickler wrote:
5000 is impossible right now while the best engines are 3400.
Actually even with a K factor of 1, the summation for rating gain (as the gap between two players goes from zero to infinity) is divergent, which is to say if an engine that never loses played infinite games, its rating would be infinity.
So it's not impossible, but sure, really unlikely we'll be able to make an engine good enough to reach 5000 any time soon (but it wouldn't require 4600 level opposition to get there, it would just need to be stronger than otherwise).
Dec 9, 2017
0
#93
Elroch wrote:
mcris wrote:
pfren wrote:
chesstauren έγραψε:
Unless google release the details (time controls, CPU speeds etc...) I'm calling shenanigans.
All details have been released.
Stockfish was an old version (8) running with only 1 GB of RAM.
There is no doubt that AI if the future in chess, but smashing a crippled engine (too little RAM, no opening book) is not a proof of anything. You can rather call it another Google marketing trick.
You can add to that the silly time control used in the match.
Stockfish 8 is not an old version, it is last, I just visited their website. Although I agree that 1 GB of RAM is lowering its capability.
It was 1 GB hash table, not 1 GB RAM, and you mean possibly lowering its capability: there is not a monotone relationship. What is the most relevant data you have on this?
The hash table is stored in RAM for more speed. Keep reading.
Dec 9, 2017
0
#94
mcris wrote:
Elroch wrote:
mcris wrote:
pfren wrote:
chesstauren έγραψε:
Unless google release the details (time controls, CPU speeds etc...) I'm calling shenanigans.
All details have been released.
Stockfish was an old version (8) running with only 1 GB of RAM.
There is no doubt that AI if the future in chess, but smashing a crippled engine (too little RAM, no opening book) is not a proof of anything. You can rather call it another Google marketing trick.
You can add to that the silly time control used in the match.
Stockfish 8 is not an old version, it is last, I just visited their website. Although I agree that 1 GB of RAM is lowering its capability.
It was 1 GB hash table, not 1 GB RAM, and you mean possibly lowering its capability: there is not a monotone relationship. What is the most relevant data you have on this?
The hash table is stored in RAM for more speed. Keep reading.
Yeah, but that's still an importnat distinction. If the motherboard only had access to 1GB RAM, even if you set the hash table to 1GB, you'd get less. So if they said 1GB RAM it would be misleading if what they really meant was 1GB hash.
Dec 9, 2017
0
#95
The DeepMind paper refers to a 1 GB hash table, not to any RAM limitation.
Meanwhile, here are the reactions of some of the world's top chess players, plus a Stockfish developer:
https://www.chess.com/news/view/alphazero-reactions-from-top-gms-stockfish-author
Dec 9, 2017
0
#96
The stockfish developer in my opinion made thorough points about how the match wasn't necessarily coherent in terms of could have gone. Personally, does anyone think that stockfish or even AlphaZero could have performed better with equal playing conditions like opening book, endgame table-base, better time controls, same-hardware, yata yata yata.
Dec 9, 2017
0
#97
MergedZamasu wrote:
The stockfish developer in my opinion made thorough points about how the match wasn't necessarily coherent in terms of could have gone. Personally, does anyone think that stockfish or even AlphaZero could have performed better with equal playing conditions like opening book, endgame table-base, better time controls, same-hardware, yata yata yata.
Well yeah, things like EGTB can only help performance.
Like the guy said, probably more draws for SF, but AZ is still super impressive and exciting for things way beyond chess.
It just transpired the Google meaning of 64 threads was actually 32 cores, so that SF was at an even bigger disadvantage.
A PC versus a monster.
Dec 9, 2017
0
#99
sammy_boi wrote:
Yeah, but that's still an importnat distinction. If the motherboard only had access to 1GB RAM, even if you set the hash table to 1GB, you'd get less. So if they said 1GB RAM it would be misleading if what they really meant was 1GB hash.
You are very ignorant about computers. Refrain from consuming space here, please.
I don't know why all best American chess players have non-English names?
Forget all about Alpha: just a media stunt.
Why would I be interested in a 2800 engine?