141–150 of 190 posts
It’s worth understanding that Shin Jinse has been significantly stronger than his nearest human opponents for a while now, more so than Magnus was even at his very peak. In go ELO like scoring he’s something like 120 points over the next strongest player. No other player has ever broken a 3800 rating let alone 3850. Ke Jie (the previous long time champion) peaked at 3755. Shin Jinseo’s strength graph is the most absu…
I don't know what the fascination with these AI versus human tournaments is. I'm old enough to remember the whole "Deep Blue" vs Kasparov exhibition, and I didn't really understand the fascination with all that either. That humans can make sufficiently strong calculators has never been a dispute in my mind. If the human wins over the calculator, good, but if the calculator wins, okay. What does that tell us exactly?…
> That humans can make sufficiently strong calculators has never been a dispute in my mind. Within our lifetimes (unless you're quite young) it was doubtful if a go ai would ever beat a decent human. Same was true for chess a generation or two earlier. It's news because it's the handoff of man to machine being the best at a particular thing. This current news is news from the other way, this human did _exceptionally_…
That's a way to see it. Another way to see it is that for any given event in a zero sum game, one of two outcomes, where two players are involved, will occur. Man only had to beat machines for what, 200-400 years only for it to beat man how many times for it to be "best"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While AlphaGo originally only had win rate as a metric, modern Go AIs have more knobs, including an evaluation of "complexity". Just stating this off the top of my head so I could be misremembering, but I heard that the KataGo settings used were tweaked to favor complexity. This was most apparent in Game 1 which Shin Jinseo lost, where the AI had an unusual opening. However, the last game was quite plain leading me t…
Ah this is interesting. Essentially the idea is that the compute can try and move into positions that it can evaluate but humans might have trouble evaluating because of the board state's complexity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't compare Elo ratings over long stretches of time, period. I agree that you cannot do it reliably, in principle. However, Bobby Fischer peaked at 2785, and Gary Kasparov peaked at 2851. These are not far from what informed observers suggest--maybe 50 or 100 points off. They are well into super-grandmaster territory. Kasparov would be 1st today, Fischer would be 4th. But on goratings.org, the top player of t…
I agree that the drift in chess Elo ratings is slow enough that we can say Bobby Fischer at his peak would still be a strong grandmaster today (if he were given some time to study developments in opening theory). But I don't think we can say whether he would land at 2700 or 2800 in today's Elo scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you want to compare Magnus Carlsen's peak rating of 2882 in the year 2014 to Garry Kasparov's peak rating of 2851 in the year 1999, you have to know how strong the total pool of players (including all the amateurs who compete at lower levels) was in the year 2014 vs. 1999. I imagine that FIDE has all of this data somewhere, right? They don't publish more in-depth distributional analyses of players somewhere?
The distribution of Elo ratings will not tell you how strong the average player is in an absolute sense. Elo ratings measure differences in skill between different players. A player rated 400 points above another player will win 90% of the time. Only rating differences are meaningful. Absolute ratings aren't.
However, since the population maintains some continuity over time (players gradually enter and then leave over time), would it not be possible to reconstruct relative ratings between players that didn't play during the same era?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It’s not my first language too, but your version sounds odd. Usually you put an action first and only then the details
Trouble is, from the existing title it's not clear who had the handicap. So the poster is right to try and fix it.
Or
Go grandmaster Shin, playing with a two-stone handicap, defeats AI KataGo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...on a 4x 3090 rig. The game ran 299 moves, giving katago 100 minutes if it exhausted time on each move (which must be the optimal strategy under that time control). Shin used about 205 minutes, over twice as much time and of course had leeway to spend more time on difficult moves. Based on the youtube video, it looks like katago was only using 16 seconds per move, is that right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-86z…
As another question, does it not operate similarly to the top chess engines? The way the neural network systems work is by using the probabilistic matching paired with a Monte Carlo simulation. So you can get to extreme depth very rapidly. Obviously the breadth is going to be limited, but if the neural network side is well tuned (so high probability hits are indeed generally the most challenging moves), then that's n…
I don't know what the fascination with these AI versus human tournaments is. I'm old enough to remember the whole "Deep Blue" vs Kasparov exhibition, and I didn't really understand the fascination with all that either. That humans can make sufficiently strong calculators has never been a dispute in my mind. If the human wins over the calculator, good, but if the calculator wins, okay. What does that tell us exactly?…
It's all narrative. Abstract strategy games with perfect information (like chess and go) look at a casual glance like they should be difficult for computers, but in fact they're rather ideal. Before AlphaGo, belligerent go players used to smugly dismiss chess as a 'solved game' (not what that means) because chess engines have been better than the best humans for years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can the grandmasters still win with rook odds?
they can win with any odds. But, they can only barely win even with queen odds: https://lqo.leumon.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can the grandmasters still win with rook odds?
Sometimes, especially at long blitz/rapid but they usually lose. I am master level player (FM) and it took me almost 300 games of slow blitz to beat it with N odds and about 150 games to beat it with rook odds. I was beating it at Q odds (meaning more than 50%) but I suspect it might be even better now than it used to be.