mclane wrote:
Stockfish and Komodo and Houdini play machine chess.
AZ plays a human like chess.
It sacs pieces for attack or development or space.
And the sacs do NOT lead to a material compensation soon, otherwise
Stockfish and Komodo and Houdini would see the sac and not eat the piece.
It seems AZ plays chess out of the interval stockfish/Komodo/ Houdini searches.
This is very funny to replay.
Stockfish gets smashed down like an idiot.
I guess any human chess player no matter which level he plays can observe that stockfish has no chance at all to win.
The way AZ plays is heavily different then that of the normal chess programs that I feel sorrow for them.
They all play machine chess in their interval of 20-30 plies they search.
But outside this interval, AZ kills them with very easy moves.
A human mind can understand those moves, but for a chess program with a search tree it seems those moves are very difficult to understand.
We see human chess beat machine chess.
With AZ playing like a machine emulated human.
The team of AlphaZero stated that their machine taught itself from zero knowledge of chess using only the rule of chess as start point.
In your opinion what is the explanation for the phenomenon described by you above? "Thinking" of AlphaZero is based on vectors and probability.
This is very different from thought of human.
probability is certainly not different from thought of human.
If humans play games against themselves in a new position that they do not know and see no way to win they learn that they probably cannot win.
This is the way humans who do not know about the blind bishop discover it
and understand that some KBP vs K endgame is a draw without previous knowledge.
Of course you can teach the program specific knowledge about KBP vs K but there are many different cases and you cannot cover all of them so you should teach it to think in the way humans do to discover things like it during the game.
In fact, a more appropriate name for AlphaZero would the The Terminator.
I know this nick has been misused by many strong players or engines, but the AI AlphaZero certainly deserves this nick, for the unemotional way it simply DESTROYED one of the strongest chess engines in the world.
shrapnel wrote:In fact, a more appropriate name for AlphaZero would the The Terminator.
I know this nick has been misused by many strong players or engines, but the AI AlphaZero certainly deserves this nick, for the unemotional way it simply DESTROYED one of the strongest chess engines in the world.
Oh for god sake man, stop trolling around. How old are you 10?
You behave like an OCD kid in a candy store.
Milos wrote:Oh for god sake man, stop trolling around. How old are you 10?
You behave like an OCD kid in a candy store.
Have you even bothered to really go through the games ?
Then you would realize who is really trolling.
You talk a lot of nonsense about how the conditions were unfair to Stockfish and similar such stuff, but if you went through the GM annotated games in YouTube, you would realize how completely outclassed Stockfish was, positionally as well as tactically. Stockfish found itself in the Grip of a Boa Constrictor, pure and simple, and calling me names isn't going to change that.
Time for you and your Pal Tsevtkov to pack your bags and take up Cards or something.
Go through these YouTube videos, maybe then you'll realize why you and Tsvetkov sound so ridiculous to me... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jwQlAsvygY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb4WftADuWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thZzaS-noSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQPEQ5dBKfk
Even a better one, where Stockfish is completely HUMILIATED.
Towards the end, the Commentator was actually laughing at Stockfish's predicament. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPEefHPZNr4
Milos wrote:Oh for god sake man, stop trolling around. How old are you 10?
You behave like an OCD kid in a candy store.
Have you even bothered to really go through the games ?
Then you would realize who is really trolling.
You talk a lot of nonsense about how the conditions were unfair to Stockfish and similar such stuff, but if you went through the GM annotated games in YouTube, you would realize how completely outclassed Stockfish was, positionally as well as tactically. Stockfish found itself in the Grip of a Boa Constrictor, pure and simple, and calling me names isn't going to change that.
Time for you and your Pal Tsevtkov to pack your bags and take up Cards or something.
Go through these YouTube videos, maybe then you'll realize why you and Tsvetkov sound so ridiculous to me... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jwQlAsvygY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb4WftADuWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thZzaS-noSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQPEQ5dBKfk
Milos ...
you mentioned...
'GM annotated games... '
I clicked on all 4 vidoes ... but did not see (or hear) any GM's annotating the games ...
Milos wrote:They don't say it in a correct way because it is not a scientific paper they published but essentially an advertising leaflet.
To say the least, because if this already should serve as a scientific paper, I'd simply call the main content of the way of testing biased, letting a learning machine play chess against a not learning bookless playing engine at strictly bound 1'/move TC, to be sure the engine would repeat its under these conditions even more truncated opening repertoire on and on.
So I'd simply call the whole stuff bad scientific practice, if it was meant as a scientific paper already yet.
No scientific journal of some impact factor would print that at all
Milos wrote:They don't say it in a correct way because it is not a scientific paper they published but essentially an advertising leaflet.
To say the least, because if this already should serve as a scientific paper, I'd simply call the main content of the way of testing biased, letting a learning machine play chess against a not learning bookless playing engine at strictly bound 1'/move TC, to be sure the engine would repeat its under these conditions even more truncated opening repertoire on and on.
So I'd simply call the whole stuff bad scientific practice, if it was meant as a scientific paper already yet.
No scientific journal of some impact factor would print that at all
AlphaZero plays excellent chess, but I agree with you, the paper has more than 4 errors (maybe there are more which escaped my proofreading and
were not typographical errors nor punctuation marks).
Last edited by MikeGL on Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
pilgrimdan wrote:
I clicked on all 4 vidoes ... but did not see (or hear) any GM's annotating the games ...
Again quibbling. GMs or not, they are chess experts and if you take the trouble of going through them you will realize how completely outclassed Stockfish was.
pilgrimdan wrote:
I clicked on all 4 vidoes ... but did not see (or hear) any GM's annotating the games ...
Again quibbling. GMs or not, they are chess experts and if you take the trouble of going through them you will realize how completely outclassed Stockfish was.
seems like MCTS and NN have been around for awhile now...
why are they just now starting to have an effect on using AI ...