Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stockfish 14

stockfishchess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 207 posts

Re: Stockfish 14

#41

Post by nestorD »

make3 wrote: post #17
TchoBeer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NNUE is much smaller than Leela's net, and has a much different architecture that's optimized more for CPU. Additionally, Leela uses Monte Carlo Tree Search and Stockfish uses Alpha/Beta pruning.

They say that the dataset is hundreds of Gigs worths of games, so the net must still be really pretty big. Though definitely not directly comparable, dataset of GPT2-xl is 8 million web-pages. What I mean to say is that this is clearly deep learning.

Its actually really small, mostly because bigger networks take longer to evaluate which slows down the search making it shallower and ending in a less clever algorithm.

Re: Stockfish 14

#42

Post by make3 »

aidenn0 wrote: post #27
make3 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say that the dataset is hundreds of Gigs worths of games, so the net must still be really pretty big. Though definitely not directly comparable, dataset of GPT2-xl is 8 million web-pages. What I mean to say is that this is clearly deep learning.

Size of training set is not enough to make it deep learning, right? Doesn't deep learning imply at least one hidden layer?

Are you saying you read that it didn't have a hidden layer?

My point is that having such a huge dataset would not be extremely useful without using a deep neural net (of at least one hidden layer)

Re: Stockfish 14

#43

Post by make3 »

nestorD wrote: post #41
make3 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say that the dataset is hundreds of Gigs worths of games, so the net must still be really pretty big. Though definitely not directly comparable, dataset of GPT2-xl is 8 million web-pages. What I mean to say is that this is clearly deep learning.

Its actually really small, mostly because bigger networks take longer to evaluate which slows down the search making it shallower and ending in a less clever algorithm.

Are you involved in the project ? Can I ask what your source is? Great if it's the case.

Re: Stockfish 14

#44

Post by ummonk »

make3 wrote: post #17
TchoBeer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NNUE is much smaller than Leela's net, and has a much different architecture that's optimized more for CPU. Additionally, Leela uses Monte Carlo Tree Search and Stockfish uses Alpha/Beta pruning.

They say that the dataset is hundreds of Gigs worths of games, so the net must still be really pretty big. Though definitely not directly comparable, dataset of GPT2-xl is 8 million web-pages. What I mean to say is that this is clearly deep learning.

You can have a relatively small model and still benefit from using a gigantic training set to train the model.

Re: Stockfish 14

#45

Post by TameAntelope »

recursive wrote: post #31
aidenn0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most chess games are already time constrained (though a ref can call it if someone in a non-winning position is trying to run out the opponents clock) [edit] I was imperfectly remembering the rules. If it is theoretically impossible (even with blunders on the player who is out of time's part) for the player with time left to win, then it is a draw. In addition, a player with less than 2 minutes on the clock may reque…

I'm not super into chess, but I was under the impression that running out the clock was a totally legitimate tactic. I'm surprised to hear that a referee has discretion to end the game based on it.

There is not referee discretion, to my understanding of the rules, in FIDE or USCF.

Re: Stockfish 14

#46

Post by dh5 »

recursive wrote: post #31
aidenn0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most chess games are already time constrained (though a ref can call it if someone in a non-winning position is trying to run out the opponents clock) [edit] I was imperfectly remembering the rules. If it is theoretically impossible (even with blunders on the player who is out of time's part) for the player with time left to win, then it is a draw. In addition, a player with less than 2 minutes on the clock may reque…

I'm not super into chess, but I was under the impression that running out the clock was a totally legitimate tactic. I'm surprised to hear that a referee has discretion to end the game based on it.

An arbiter 100% cannot stop a game because of that. Time management is part of the game in speed chess anyway, and for longer time controls there is usually a delay/increment so running out the clock in a clearly lost position isn't viable.

Re: Stockfish 14

#47

Post by slyall »

pedrosorio wrote: post #34
recursive wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not super into chess, but I was under the impression that running out the clock was a totally legitimate tactic. I'm surprised to hear that a referee has discretion to end the game based on it.

FIDE's handbook (article 6) specifies you lose (or draw) if you run out of time, yes: https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf I am not a chess player but I have never heard of referees stopping the game if you don't "give up" in a losing position and have extra time. That sounds ridiculous but I would love to know if it applies in certain tournaments and the reasoning behind it.

You are allowed to keep thinking as long as you have time on your clock. Isn't really considered good sportsmanship but is legal.

Recent instances I saw was an adult was in an almost-lost position with over an hour on the clock while his opponent had 10 minutes. He let his clock run down to nothing and then played quickly before finally let the clock run to zero in a lost (mate in 2) position. He got mocked for this in the local forums.

Also common for a kid to do a blunder and then sit there sad/crying for an hour. You try to encourage them to resign though.

Source: Am Chess Player/Organizer/arbiter.

Re: Stockfish 14

#48

Post by detaro »

pedrosorio wrote: post #34
recursive wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not super into chess, but I was under the impression that running out the clock was a totally legitimate tactic. I'm surprised to hear that a referee has discretion to end the game based on it.

FIDE's handbook (article 6) specifies you lose (or draw) if you run out of time, yes: https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf I am not a chess player but I have never heard of referees stopping the game if you don't "give up" in a losing position and have extra time. That sounds ridiculous but I would love to know if it applies in certain tournaments and the reasoning behind it.

I assume the original comment is (not perfectly accurately) talking about the rules under 10.2

Re: Stockfish 14

#50

Post by aidenn0 »

dh5 wrote: post #46
recursive wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not super into chess, but I was under the impression that running out the clock was a totally legitimate tactic. I'm surprised to hear that a referee has discretion to end the game based on it.

An arbiter 100% cannot stop a game because of that. Time management is part of the game in speed chess anyway, and for longer time controls there is usually a delay/increment so running out the clock in a clearly lost position isn't viable.

I slightly misremembered; the player stops the clock and calls the arbiter; if the arbiter agrees that their opponent is not attempting to win by normal means, the arbiter may award a draw. There is a 2 minute bonus to the opponent if the arbiter disagrees with the player making this claim.
Post reply on HN