LiChess: Learn from your mistakes • Hacker News Board

Re: LiChess: Learn from your mistakes

#41

Post by smallnamespace » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 4:04 AM UTC

robryan wrote: post #8

smallnamespace wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually the case, or perhaps humans try a lot of sub-optimal opening lines?

Sub optimal from the perspective of the AI, some positions that seem easy for an AI looking 10 moves ahead might be tricky for your opponent.

If your goal is to win, wouldn't you want to play the move that always leads to a win 10 moves ahead, rather than a move that looks immediately tricky but is actually escapable for the other player?

And given that you want to become a better chess player, isn't it better to start learning the best lines from the start?

Re: LiChess: Learn from your mistakes

#42

Post by nandemo » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 4:09 AM UTC

robryan wrote: post #8

smallnamespace wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually the case, or perhaps humans try a lot of sub-optimal opening lines?

Sub optimal from the perspective of the AI, some positions that seem easy for an AI looking 10 moves ahead might be tricky for your opponent.

Sorry, but this makes my head hurt.

>>> best chess engines are still worse at analyzing openings than humans.

>> Is that actually the case, or perhaps humans try a lot of sub-optimal opening lines?

> Sub optimal from the perspective of the AI

There's no perspective involved: optimal play is perfect play, assuming the opponent also plays perfectly. If a move is sub-optimal for White that means White has a better move, no matter what the opponent plays.

Sure, in practice a non-perfect-player might do better playing a sub-optimal move A rather than a better move B, because they don't know how to continue after B or because their non-perfect opponent ends up replying even more sub-optimally to A.

But just because I can manage to pull a fool's mate on someone that doesn't make it an optimal opening. One could say I might be "optimizing" for fun or for time, but if you redefine optimality arbitrarily then the original claim might as well be "chess engines are worse than humans at analyzing openings because they play better than humans".

PS: I'm not claiming that chess engines are better or worse than humans. And, incidentally, playing an inferior move while hoping the opponent makes a mistake is bad even if it works, as it really hinders your progress.

Re: LiChess: Learn from your mistakes

#43

Post by wallace_f » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 4:13 AM UTC

nsted wrote: post #36

no_wizard wrote: post #20

Gotta ask and I ain't trying to start a flame war here.... how's the community compared to say, ICC? I was a big time user of ICC back in the day simply because the average player was high caliber after FICS started to become a bit of a dead zone for standard players (I like 45 5 or higher timed classic games )

There are more high level players on ICC because that's where the high level players are. Chess.com also has a decent interface, but they particularly excel in chess news, event coverage and community support.

That said there are plenty of verified expert-level players there, whom are probably at least 1 standard deviation above and beyond satisfying 99.99% of the world population of people looking to play chess.^1

[1] - https://en.lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz

Re: LiChess: Learn from your mistakes

#44

Post by wallace_f » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 4:27 AM UTC

smallnamespace wrote: post #41

robryan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sub optimal from the perspective of the AI, some positions that seem easy for an AI looking 10 moves ahead might be tricky for your opponent.

If your goal is to win, wouldn't you want to play the move that always leads to a win 10 moves ahead, rather than a move that looks immediately tricky but is actually escapable for the other player? And given that you want to become a better chess player, isn't it better to start learning the best lines from the start?

> If your goal is to win, wouldn't you want to play the move that always leads to a win 10 moves ahead

Sure, but the King's Gambit is just an opening, and you'd have to rely on lazy mistakes to guarantee a win 10 moves ahead that early in the game.

Re: LiChess: Learn from your mistakes

#45

Post by wallace_f » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 4:31 AM UTC

csmajorfive wrote: post #7

lichess.org and the corresponding open source project[1] are really quite something. If you're at all interested in chess or code, I recommend following it -- their great execution will inspire you. [1] https://github.com/ornicar/lila

This may sound naive, but what are the incentives and/or how are the developers of Lichess making a profit. The site is one of the best executed webapps I've ever used. What motivates the creators?

Re: LiChess: Learn from your mistakes

#46

Post by jdjb » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 4:33 AM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #45

csmajorfive wrote: post #7

lichess.org and the corresponding open source project[1] are really quite something. If you're at all interested in chess or code, I recommend following it -- their great execution will inspire you. [1] https://github.com/ornicar/lila

This may sound naive, but what are the incentives and/or how are the developers of Lichess making a profit. The site is one of the best executed webapps I've ever used. What motivates the creators?

Thibault simply wants to deliver the best online chess experience. Period.

It's purely donation driven and he pulls a small salary from whatever's leftover after buying enough servers to keep the site up.

Re: LiChess: Learn from your mistakes

#47

Post by smallnamespace » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 4:36 AM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #44

smallnamespace wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your goal is to win, wouldn't you want to play the move that always leads to a win 10 moves ahead, rather than a move that looks immediately tricky but is actually escapable for the other player? And given that you want to become a better chess player, isn't it better to start learning the best lines from the start?

> If your goal is to win, wouldn't you want to play the move that always leads to a win 10 moves ahead Sure, but the King's Gambit is just an opening, and you'd have to rely on lazy mistakes to guarantee a win 10 moves ahead that early in the game.

Right, but game theory tells us that for every single position, perfect play either leads to a win for one player or a draw, and for every position, there is a best reply.

To the extent that an AI approaches perfect play more closely than a novice or masters from the 19th century, shouldn't we go learn from the AI?

One interpretation of Stockfish here is 'I don't think this is a very strong opening'. To the extent that it's correct, stronger players will not play that opening very much, so spending time to learn it seems potentially wasteful.

Re: LiChess: Learn from your mistakes

#48

Post by maxmcd » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 4:38 AM UTC

dfc wrote: post #34

cristoperb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's annoying. But at least if you use the new "Quick game" pairing system there is no option to choose a color.

So now it's just people who quit half the quick games they start with you?

There is anti-boosting logic that disables your account if you abandon too many games

Re: LiChess: Learn from your mistakes

#49

Post by lbrandy » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 4:40 AM UTC

sscotth wrote: post #35

If your interested in cool and unique features, try resetting your password: https://en.lichess.org/password/reset

This is clever but it can't be a good captcha. Computers are really good at understanding a visual chessboard and even better at actually finding the best move.

Re: LiChess: Learn from your mistakes

#50

Post by smallnamespace » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 4:44 AM UTC

Fillipoman wrote: post #18

robryan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sub optimal from the perspective of the AI, some positions that seem easy for an AI looking 10 moves ahead might be tricky for your opponent.

Exactly. In my opinion, chess at its core is all about presenting challenging puzzles to your opponent and solving the puzzles put to you by your opponent. An engine may show that one side is way ahead but it could all depend on finding one series of precise moves and therefore not be much of an advantage at all for a human under the pressure of the clock.

Isn't positional play all about recognizing that some positions are better by virtue of giving some soft advantages that will only be realized further down the line?