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

Grandmaster-level chess without search

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 171 posts

Re: Grandmaster-level chess without search

#21

Post by rtlaker »

tzs wrote: post #20

OT: what's the state of the art in non-GM level computer chess? Say I want to play chess with an opponent that is at about the same skill level as me, or perhaps I want to play with an opponent about 100 rating points above me for training. Most engines let you dumb them down by cutting search depth, but that usually doesn't work well. Sure, you end up beating them about half the time if you cut the search down enoug…

No, not with adjustable rating. The best human-like engine is fairymax, but its Elo is estimated between 1700-2000.

Re: Grandmaster-level chess without search

#22

Post by danielmarkbruce »

tzs wrote: post #20

OT: what's the state of the art in non-GM level computer chess? Say I want to play chess with an opponent that is at about the same skill level as me, or perhaps I want to play with an opponent about 100 rating points above me for training. Most engines let you dumb them down by cutting search depth, but that usually doesn't work well. Sure, you end up beating them about half the time if you cut the search down enoug…

It doesn't seem that difficult to pull off - take one of the existing engines, get the top y moves, choose randomly. For each level down increase y by 1.

Re: Grandmaster-level chess without search

#23

Post by agubelu »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #22
tzs wrote: post #20

OT: what's the state of the art in non-GM level computer chess? Say I want to play chess with an opponent that is at about the same skill level as me, or perhaps I want to play with an opponent about 100 rating points above me for training. Most engines let you dumb them down by cutting search depth, but that usually doesn't work well. Sure, you end up beating them about half the time if you cut the search down enoug…

It doesn't seem that difficult to pull off - take one of the existing engines, get the top y moves, choose randomly. For each level down increase y by 1.

It doesn't work that way. There are many positions with lots of moves that are reasonable, but many others with only 1-2 sensible moves. It would make lots of obvious blunders that an amateur human would never make.

Re: Grandmaster-level chess without search

#24

Post by rococode »

tzs wrote: post #20

OT: what's the state of the art in non-GM level computer chess? Say I want to play chess with an opponent that is at about the same skill level as me, or perhaps I want to play with an opponent about 100 rating points above me for training. Most engines let you dumb them down by cutting search depth, but that usually doesn't work well. Sure, you end up beating them about half the time if you cut the search down enoug…

Maia does this reasonably well! You can play against it on Lichess. I have gotten a few "feels like a human" moments when playing against it - for example, getting it to fall into a trap that could trick a human but would easily be seen by a traditional search algorithm. It's not adjustable but there are a few different versions with different ratings (although it's not a very wide range).

https://www.maiachess.com/

https://lichess.org/@/maia1

Re: Grandmaster-level chess without search

#25

Post by dullcrisp »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #22
tzs wrote: post #20

OT: what's the state of the art in non-GM level computer chess? Say I want to play chess with an opponent that is at about the same skill level as me, or perhaps I want to play with an opponent about 100 rating points above me for training. Most engines let you dumb them down by cutting search depth, but that usually doesn't work well. Sure, you end up beating them about half the time if you cut the search down enoug…

It doesn't seem that difficult to pull off - take one of the existing engines, get the top y moves, choose randomly. For each level down increase y by 1.

Seems this might still have the problem of moves being either extremely good or extremely bad depending on how many good moves are found, rather than playing at a consistent level. Or for example in a degenerate case where there are only two moves and one leads to mate, the computer will be picking randomly.

Re: Grandmaster-level chess without search

#26

Post by bobmcnamara »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #22
tzs wrote: post #20

OT: what's the state of the art in non-GM level computer chess? Say I want to play chess with an opponent that is at about the same skill level as me, or perhaps I want to play with an opponent about 100 rating points above me for training. Most engines let you dumb them down by cutting search depth, but that usually doesn't work well. Sure, you end up beating them about half the time if you cut the search down enoug…

It doesn't seem that difficult to pull off - take one of the existing engines, get the top y moves, choose randomly. For each level down increase y by 1.

Your engine would only mate once it had y options to mate.

Re: Grandmaster-level chess without search

#27

Post by chmod775 »

agubelu wrote: post #23
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem that difficult to pull off - take one of the existing engines, get the top y moves, choose randomly. For each level down increase y by 1.

It doesn't work that way. There are many positions with lots of moves that are reasonable, but many others with only 1-2 sensible moves. It would make lots of obvious blunders that an amateur human would never make.

Also attention. Lower level human players are more likely to make a move close to their own/their opponent's recent move. They're focused on one area of the board.

Basic computer opponents on the other hand can make moves all over the place. They look at the board state holistically. This can be very frustrating to play against as a human who has enough problems just thinking their way through some subset of the board, but is thrown off by the computer again and again.

It's not that bad in chess at least (compared to Go), but still something worth to keep in mind if you're trying to make an AI that is fun to play against as an amateur.

Re: Grandmaster-level chess without search

#28

Post by ajkjk »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #22
tzs wrote: post #20

OT: what's the state of the art in non-GM level computer chess? Say I want to play chess with an opponent that is at about the same skill level as me, or perhaps I want to play with an opponent about 100 rating points above me for training. Most engines let you dumb them down by cutting search depth, but that usually doesn't work well. Sure, you end up beating them about half the time if you cut the search down enoug…

It doesn't seem that difficult to pull off - take one of the existing engines, get the top y moves, choose randomly. For each level down increase y by 1.

No, it doesn't work at all. Human mistakes are not at all like computer mistakes. Like -- blundering a piece in a 1-2 move combination will straight up never show up in the stockfish move tree, no matter what you set `y` to.

Re: Grandmaster-level chess without search

#29

Post by grumpopotamus »

janalsncm wrote: post #18
solveit wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really have no way to know this. But I would be very surprised if modern chess engines didn't regularly blunder into losing (from the perspective of a hypothetical 32-piece tablebase) positions, and very very surprised if modern chess engines perfectly converted tablebase-winning positions.

The fact that TCEC games aren’t all draws suggests that computers aren’t perfect. Stockfish loses to Leela sometimes for example.

Tcec games are deliberately played from imbalanced opening positions. The draw rate would be much higher for the top participants if this wasn't forced. However, I agree that engines are not perfect. I have heard this claim many times before a new engine came along that showed just how beatable the state of the art engines still were at the time.

Re: Grandmaster-level chess without search

#30

Post by dullcrisp »

bobmcnamara wrote: post #26
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem that difficult to pull off - take one of the existing engines, get the top y moves, choose randomly. For each level down increase y by 1.

Your engine would only mate once it had y options to mate.

Or y chances. They did say it’d pick randomly. Still not great though, if a bit less funny.
Post reply on HN