Is it just me or is battle-of-the-AI chess more exciting than humans?
People usually feel more attached to sports and other competitions if there are personalities behind the results.
Stockfish 14
51–60 of 207 posts
Re: Stockfish 14
#52Is it just me or is battle-of-the-AI chess more exciting than humans?
Minor thought, but one of the things I love about high level AI chess, like Stockfish vs AlphaZero, is seeing how their ratings of positions change over the course of the game.
I had realized a while ago that, as a human, the computer will give your position a score, and then you make a move, and your score can pretty much only stay the same (if you make a "perfect" move) or go down. Much of the time, it goes down.
Two humans playing each other, it's just a question: who's score goes down less each time they make a move? It became a little sad. It seemed like either you can make the right move, or you make a sub-optimal move, and the winner is simply the one who makes the fewer sub-optimal moves.
But when AlphaZero plays, and you watch Stockfish's score, the reason it wins is that it makes moves Stockfish thinks is poor, so it rates AlphaZero's moves poorly, and then all of a sudden it has an oh shit! moment when it realises that AlphaZero is actually ahead, and its score jumps. It's really a look inside the computer's head while it's being beaten by a better player.
Re: Stockfish 14
#53Re: Stockfish 14
#54> Stockfish has thus gained about 80 Elo per year. Pointless but fun question: how does this compare to human players?
Humans can gain hundreds or thousands of points per year at the start, but then tend to plateau afaik, it's actually easy to check this out on peoples public lichess accounts. Here is the world champion: https://lichess.org/@/DrNykterstein If you browse some other people, especially young and new players you can see the improvement over time.
Nitpick, certainly not thousands. When you're first starting out even if your elo is like 400, you'll be lucky to break 1000 after a year unless you study very diligently. The gap from 1000-2000 then takes multiple years (probably like 4-5 of diligent study)
Climbing chess elo is very hard and slow!
Re: Stockfish 14
#55Earlier 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.
> They say that the dataset is hundreds of Gigs worths of games, so the net must still be really pretty big.
This isn't true. The size of the training data doesn't imply anything about the size of the neural network.
In the case of Stockfish, the NN is quite shallow, and implemented using a custom framework designed to to run fast on CPUs.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26746160 for previous commentary on this.
> Though definitely not directly comparable, dataset of GPT2-xl is 8 million web-pages.
This is irrelevant. You can train GPT3 on a smaller dataset, or a smaller model on the same dataset as GPT3.
> What I mean to say is that this is clearly deep learning.
It's been clear that neural network models are superior since Alpha Go. There's not "Deep Learning vs " anymore because the isn't competitive and no one is really working on it.
Re: Stockfish 14
#56Re: Stockfish 14
#57> Stockfish has thus gained about 80 Elo per year. Pointless but fun question: how does this compare to human players?
Top players plateau in strength because human memory and processing power is limited, so they are limited in how much additional knowledge can improve their actual playing strength. For Stockfish, OTOH, algorithmic improvements (especially NNs) have steadily increased its strength.
Re: Stockfish 14
#58Is it just me or is battle-of-the-AI chess more exciting than humans?
Minor thought, but one of the things I love about high level AI chess, like Stockfish vs AlphaZero, is seeing how their ratings of positions change over the course of the game. I had realized a while ago that, as a human, the computer will give your position a score, and then you make a move, and your score can pretty much only stay the same (if you make a "perfect" move) or go down. Much of the time, it goes down. T…
> But when AlphaZero plays, and you watch Stockfish's score, the reason it wins is that it makes moves Stockfish thinks is poor, so it rates AlphaZero's moves poorly, and then all of a sudden it has an oh shit! moment when it realises that AlphaZero is actually ahead, and its score jumps. It's really a look inside the computer's head while it's being beaten by a better player.
That's more or less a description of what happens when two humans are playing over the board.
Re: Stockfish 14
#59Re: Stockfish 14
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but who uses chess.com anymore?
what do you use?
I’m not the parent commenter, but I use Lichess. It’s free, supported by donations (so their incentives align with mine more than a business’), open source (which I like ideologically), and in my opinion just has a nicer user interface.