Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but who uses chess.com anymore?
what do you use?
Maybe lichess.org?
Stockfish 14
61–70 of 207 posts
Re: Stockfish 14
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the difference though, that Leela is a pure RL implementation whereas NNUE/SF still uses some tablebase stuff?
Leela uses mcts, sf does not. SF also trains on human positions, while I think Leela is self play only.
SF14's net was actually trained on lc0 data. Human data is way too weak for SF to learn from.
Re: Stockfish 14
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
I think reaching 1400 elo after a year of decent study after learning the rules is not too unreasonable. To reach 1400 in a year you would need to be either talented or hard-working. Climbing the elo ladder does get much harder though, as you mentioned. To reach 2000 in two years you would need to be both hard-working and talented. To reach 2850 in a lifetime you have to be hard-working, talented, and a particular Norwegian GM.
Re: Stockfish 14
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I am involved in lc0 development and fairly aware of SF dev. NNUE is a very small (3 layer dense) cpu only net.
Re: Stockfish 14
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
NNUE is a 4 layer (1 input + 3 dense) integer only neural network.
It's just over 82,000 parameters.[1] That's a very shallow, small NN - by comparison something like EfficientNet-B1[2] is 7.8M parameters, and that's considered a small network.
[1] https://www.chessprogramming.org/Stockfish_NNUE#NNUE_Structu...
Re: Stockfish 14
#66Earlier 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.
> 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 t…
[deleted]
Re: Stockfish 14
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
As with all things, it depends on how intense you are. I've seen a guy go from 900 to 2k in 6 months, but he played over 1k hours during that time (yeah). It really depends on how much you are willing to play!
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm talking about online rating
Re: Stockfish 14
#68Is it just me or is battle-of-the-AI chess more exciting than humans?
At the highest level, chess becomes an endurance sport. Magnus is so great because he can squeeze water from a stone. That is definitely admirable, but somewhat deflating compared to idea of the one brilliant move or insane positional play. Give a man bionic legs and it is no longer about how fast he can run but rather what new places he can go.
[deleted]
Re: Stockfish 14
#69Re: Stockfish 14
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I started playing chess online less then a month ago. I started with chess.com, because I knew about it beforehand for some reason. After about a week there I couldn’t take their constant nagging about getting premium account: “Get a free 7 day trail”, “Get a premium account to unlock more analysis”, “you’ve reached your maximum puzzles for the day, get a premium subscription to unlock more”, etc.
I did some research (mostly on the online-go.com forums) and joined lichess.org and haven’t looked back since. Superior in every way.
Perhaps I should thank chess.com for being so annoying, if it weren’t for their constant nagging I would probably have stayed on the platform and never discovered lichess.org.