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

161–170 of 207 posts

Re: Stockfish 14

#161

Post by thom »

nl wrote: post #144
mlang23 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the evaluation of a position were only about the raw material count, the game would be rather dull.

Sure. Hence why I talked about the feeling you get when you realise you have mis-evaluated rather than trying to define it precisely. From the OP: > 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…

There were blunders in the first round of games. I remember this vividly because I went through all the games with the exact same version of Stockfish with the same time controls and it thought some of its own moves were blunders. This is partly why people were so puzzled by the setup that led to this.

Re: Stockfish 14

#162

Post by thom »

fsiefken wrote: post #113

What would be the added value of an average and aspiring chess player like me to play against Stockfish 14 instead of one of he previous versions? I feel I'll never challenge the maximum capacity of such an engine.

Play against? Probably very little. But certainly it'll give you sharper analyses of your other games, and slightly better lines to memorise as part of your preparation. This probably isn't where most people should be spending their time learning though, obv.

Re: Stockfish 14

#163

Post by codeulike »

tus89 wrote: post #25

Is it just me or is battle-of-the-AI chess more exciting than humans?

Its kind of more interesting because you can find out more about whats happening 'under the hood'. When two people play its just 'clever brain vs clever brain' with no engineering details. When two AIs play you can say its this many racks of servers and teraflops and the other one has a model thats trained itself from scratch for a few hours or whatever and so when one of them starts to trample the AI opposition we actually learn something other than 'this person has a brain thats good at chess'.

e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42251535

Re: Stockfish 14

#164

Post by sweezyjeezy »

vikingerik wrote: post #75
SamBam wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In a game of perfect information and no randomness, there are ultimately only two kinds of moves: those that preserve your current best forcible outcome (win or draw in chess*), and those that blunder that into a worse result given continued perfect play by the opponent. Everything else like a positional score or centipawns or even classic material points is an abstraction, that we use to summarize because we don't h…

In a world with perfect play this is true, but in the real world there could still be moves that are good assuming imperfect play by the opponent. That's where things get really interesting.

For example I remember the original alphazero model that had been trained specifically against stockfish, would often take a material sacrifice for some advantage that stockfish couldn't see (e.g. sacrifice a pawn, but their bishop gets locked out of the game). I don't know if these moves were objectively good given perfect play, but they could be the only way to win now (chess is very drawish at the top computer level).

Re: Stockfish 14

#165

Post by [deleted] »

Gauge_Irrahphe wrote: post #145
V-2 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you compare it with other games, playing against an engine is a huge disadvantage but will not fundamentally change the structure of the game. You are still playing chess, but against a superhuman opponent It wastes your time. Playing against a human is a different experience. If you actually wanted to practice against an engine, you would do so knowingly. With some possible benefits such as takebacks etc. (sinc…

Your rating is recalculated when a cheater is found.

[deleted]

Re: Stockfish 14

#166

Post by TenToedTony »

vfc1 wrote: post #107

I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user (I know because I report them, and they get banned). It's great to have a better engine, but I feel that would benefit the most the online chess community is not a better engine, but an open source cheat detection system, if that's even possible. I…

How can you tell it's an engine user?

Re: Stockfish 14

#167

Post by lmohseni »

eru wrote: post #153
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could even just use computer to do near perfect theory openings and you can not charge any one for cheating here, and you can still gain more ELO there. There's so much variance you could do. One does not have to alt tab to input and mirror chess engine moves with Stockfish. You can use neural network only, which is trained on human players, and have a programmatic way for AI to have suggestions on where to move…

> You could even just use computer to do near perfect theory openings and you can not charge any one for cheating here, and you can still gain more ELO there. That would be hard to distinguish from someone memorizing an opening book. So hard to detect.

On lichess, it’s possible to compare your current game against a book. I feel like it’s really improved my understanding of opening theory.

Re: Stockfish 14

#168

Post by nemz44 »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #119
vfc1 wrote: post #107

I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user (I know because I report them, and they get banned). It's great to have a better engine, but I feel that would benefit the most the online chess community is not a better engine, but an open source cheat detection system, if that's even possible. I…

It's odd that it would be 1 out of 6 or 7, because when high elo streamers like Hikaru or Chessbrah are doing speed runs, they very often go on a 100 win streak, which sounds exceedingly unlikely if the odds of facing an engine user would be 1 out of 6/7. An engine user would definitely beat them, unless they were using it sparingly of course, which can be, but I don't think it would be that obvious for you in this c…

Hikaru and Chessbrah are playing at GM level. It'd be difficult to cheat at this level. Every player tends to recognise every other player, and it takes time to climb to this elo. A far more representative example would be to observe games from a NM or IM. These guys often bump into cheaters. 1 in 6/7 isn't unrealistic.

Re: Stockfish 14

#169

Post by super_mario »

jaimex2 wrote: post #16

Rematch Alpha Zero. Have power consumption restraints. Go!

Alpha Zero would not be competitive in its original implementation. It's neural net is too small (this is why it only took 4 hours to train it, since it stopped learning after 4 hours). Stockfish 14 just doubled its network size from Stockfish 13.

Stockfish 8 actually won games against Alpha Zero. But Stockfish 11 (which is still classical evaluation engine with no neural net support) totally decimates Stockfish 8, and Stockfish 13 (which uses neural net) totally decimates Stockfish 11. Stockfish 14 just got 30 elo points stronger than 13.

As it stands now, Stockfish 14 is the strongest chess entity humanity has ever seen.

Re: Stockfish 14

#170

Post by mkohlmyr »

nemz44 wrote: post #168
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's odd that it would be 1 out of 6 or 7, because when high elo streamers like Hikaru or Chessbrah are doing speed runs, they very often go on a 100 win streak, which sounds exceedingly unlikely if the odds of facing an engine user would be 1 out of 6/7. An engine user would definitely beat them, unless they were using it sparingly of course, which can be, but I don't think it would be that obvious for you in this c…

Hikaru and Chessbrah are playing at GM level. It'd be difficult to cheat at this level. Every player tends to recognise every other player, and it takes time to climb to this elo. A far more representative example would be to observe games from a NM or IM. These guys often bump into cheaters. 1 in 6/7 isn't unrealistic.

I don't disagree with what you said, but for context: when these players do speedruns they typically start from 600 ELO and work their way back up to GM, so they face players at every level as part of that 100-game streak.
Post reply on HN