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

31–40 of 207 posts

Re: Stockfish 14

#31

Post by recursive »

aidenn0 wrote: post #29
wkavey wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a good idea, but in no way should it be the only restrained game. Others could be time restraints (total time per game and/or total time per move), depth restraints (if they both work off of BFS/similar), and probably many other restraints that those more familiar with the engines can come up with. Definitely throw in a no casteiing game as well.

Most chess games are already time constrained (though a ref can call it if someone in a non-winning position is trying to run out the opponents clock) [edit] I was imperfectly remembering the rules. If it is theoretically impossible (even with blunders on the player who is out of time's part) for the player with time left to win, then it is a draw. In addition, a player with less than 2 minutes on the clock may reque…

I'm not super into chess, but I was under the impression that running out the clock was a totally legitimate tactic. I'm surprised to hear that a referee has discretion to end the game based on it.

Re: Stockfish 14

#32

Post by l33t2328 »

aidenn0 wrote: post #27
make3 wrote: post #17

Earlier 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.

Size of training set is not enough to make it deep learning, right? Doesn't deep learning imply at least one hidden layer?

NNs without at least one hidden layer are rarely used.

Re: Stockfish 14

#34

Post by pedrosorio »

recursive wrote: post #31
aidenn0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most chess games are already time constrained (though a ref can call it if someone in a non-winning position is trying to run out the opponents clock) [edit] I was imperfectly remembering the rules. If it is theoretically impossible (even with blunders on the player who is out of time's part) for the player with time left to win, then it is a draw. In addition, a player with less than 2 minutes on the clock may reque…

I'm not super into chess, but I was under the impression that running out the clock was a totally legitimate tactic. I'm surprised to hear that a referee has discretion to end the game based on it.

FIDE's handbook (article 6) specifies you lose (or draw) if you run out of time, yes: https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

I am not a chess player but I have never heard of referees stopping the game if you don't "give up" in a losing position and have extra time. That sounds ridiculous but I would love to know if it applies in certain tournaments and the reasoning behind it.

Re: Stockfish 14

#35

Post by solveit »

l33t2328 wrote: post #32
aidenn0 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Size of training set is not enough to make it deep learning, right? Doesn't deep learning imply at least one hidden layer?

NNs without at least one hidden layer are rarely used.

They're used all the time, we just call it logistic regression.

Re: Stockfish 14

#37

Post by andrewchambers »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #36

> 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.

Re: Stockfish 14

#38

Post by abnry »

tus89 wrote: post #25

Is 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.

Re: Stockfish 14

#39

Post by vecter »

tus89 wrote: post #25

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

I agree, only because the ideas and brilliance/depth that they demonstrate is so breathtaking to behold. I love the chess.com Game of the Day playlist on YouTube, which occasionally has amazing computer chess games with early sacrifices for long-term positional compensation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-vNq61KfLs&list=PL-qLOQ-OEl....

Re: Stockfish 14

#40

Post by TylerLives »

recursive wrote: post #31
aidenn0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most chess games are already time constrained (though a ref can call it if someone in a non-winning position is trying to run out the opponents clock) [edit] I was imperfectly remembering the rules. If it is theoretically impossible (even with blunders on the player who is out of time's part) for the player with time left to win, then it is a draw. In addition, a player with less than 2 minutes on the clock may reque…

I'm not super into chess, but I was under the impression that running out the clock was a totally legitimate tactic. I'm surprised to hear that a referee has discretion to end the game based on it.

The issue is when positions are completely equal and there is no reasonable way to progress. It might still be technically possible to win in such positions, but it would require someone to make extremely bad moves and almost certainly lose. If there is no rule that forces draws in such positions, then players will just keep moving pieces without purpose until either someone's time runs out or 50 moves without capture / threefold repetition happens.
Post reply on HN