Leela, such a great engine (and innovation)?

[S.Taylor]

https://youtu.be/q-q01F9Mmb4
How does it play like that without knowledge?
Doesn't it look like the most knowledgable engine there is?

[supersharp77]

https://youtu.be/q-q01F9Mmb4
How does it play like that without knowledge?
Doesn't it look like the most knowledgable engine there is?

Don't be fooled....It's all "Smoke & Mirrors" Neural Net size is the key....

[mwyoung]

https://youtu.be/q-q01F9Mmb4
How does it play like that without knowledge?
Doesn't it look like the most knowledgable engine there is?

Don't be fooled....It's all "Smoke & Mirrors" Neural Net size is the key....

If the illusion is real
Let them give you a ride
If they got thunder appeal
Let them be on your side

[supersharp77]

https://youtu.be/q-q01F9Mmb4
How does it play like that without knowledge?
Doesn't it look like the most knowledgable engine there is?

Don't be fooled....It's all "Smoke & Mirrors" Neural Net size is the key....

If the illusion is real
Let them give you a ride
If they got thunder appeal
Let them be on your side

I propose a "Real Test" #1 LC0 with Minimal NN size vs Chess engine with Minimal opening book
Or Test #2 LC0 with Super NN size (like you are currently testing and posting bogus results) vs Chess engine with Extensive opening Book...Ex cerebellum Lets check the results......shall we?

[mwyoung]

https://youtu.be/q-q01F9Mmb4
How does it play like that without knowledge?
Doesn't it look like the most knowledgable engine there is?

Don't be fooled....It's all "Smoke & Mirrors" Neural Net size is the key....

If the illusion is real
Let them give you a ride
If they got thunder appeal
Let them be on your side

I propose a "Real Test" #1 LC0 with Minimal NN size vs Chess engine with Minimal opening book
Or Test #2 LC0 with Super NN size (like you are currently testing and posting bogus results) vs Chess engine with Extensive opening Book...Ex cerebellum Lets check the results......shall we?

Or I could test like I am testing.

Testing each engine at their best configuration.

I don't understand your irrational logic when it comes to Lc0.

I want to know what each engine is able to bring with their best configuration.

I don't care if Lc0 is using magic beans to play as good as it plays.

What most of us want to know is even with magic beans. How strong is Lc0 playing.

All you want to do is handicap Lc0 as much as possible. In the hope it will justify your irrational bias, and statements against a chess engine.

And your only issue with my testing. Is that is shows with data how irrational you are being against Lc0.

[mwyoung]

https://youtu.be/q-q01F9Mmb4
How does it play like that without knowledge?
Doesn't it look like the most knowledgable engine there is?

Don't be fooled....It's all "Smoke & Mirrors" Neural Net size is the key....

If the illusion is real
Let them give you a ride
If they got thunder appeal
Let them be on your side

Ir Test #2 LC0 with Super NN size (like you are currently testing and posting bogus results) vs Chess engine with Extensive opening Book...

And I already test with an extensive opening book and test with 24 plies of book play.

Engine testing book.jpg

[Ovyron]

I want to know what each engine is able to bring with their best configuration.

The best configuration includes a Tournament Book, say, you hire Jeroen Noomen to produce a private book for Leela that goes into positions that the engine plays best, and that will be great against whatever opponent Leela is facing, then you will see her true strength. He did it for Rebel and Rybka when they were the best, so why not Leela?

The problem with TCEC, the CCRL, and other testing groups is that they're testing with generic books, and in those, 99% of the openings played are irrelevant.

Assume for a moment that 1.d4 is actually bad and Leela struggles with it or that the Sicilian is actually bad and Leela struggles with it, yet it's being forced to play into those openings and Stockfish reigns supreme, but a Tournament book would show that Leela can kick ass with just 1.e4 and 1...e5 against 1.e4, and that all the results of the generic openings she wouldn't play are irrelevant.

This is all made up, but you should get the point that minimal books or extensive opening books are not the answer.

You don't force Magnus Carlsen to forget all the chess theory he knows at move 4 and think by himself from there. You also don't force Magnus Carlsen and his opponents to play from a generic opening position they may not have much experience in. You let them play with a "Tournament Book" that is on their head thanks to their preparation. Why aren't engines treated the same?

All the testing of Stockfish and Leela has been nothing but charades, back in my day (...2007, yeah, I'm getting old) Zappa Mexico proved to be the most superior engine, over Rybka, under these conditions, proving that all the generic testing (where Rybka was the best) was a farce.

[velmarin]

We already enter another kind of competition, that of the opening books, motors are motors, books are books, if we mix them where is the merit? in the book or the engine ?.
In part for example, Lco, Alien and all these NN engines create an anomaly in TCEC, where at some point even an engine was ejected for having an internal book, if we already know that the Neural bookis something else, but it becomes strange

[Ovyron]

motors are motors, books are books

But what are you going to use the engine for? Analyze at home? Say, if you never play the Bird, how relevant is it that they're forced to play the Bird up to a neutral position? Who cares about how they handle that opening if it's suboptimal.

Those generic openings have moves that nobody in their right mind would play if they were trying to win, it makes no sense that motors are forced to play them.

I have nothing against generic openings, just, remove the generic openings the engines are performing bad with, just allow the ones that the engine likes and would play if it had a choice. Even a little kid can note that she can't play the defense against 1.d4 d5 2.c4 very well, hate playing against the queen gambit, and stick to 1...Nf6 with great results, yet engines are forced to play 1...d5 no matter what because it's considered acceptable by generic book makers that don't care how well the engine performs with it?

Tournament Books aren't about having a stronger book than the opponent, they're about avoiding having the engine play openings it's bad at, that by the very nature of chess, it has no reason to play.

[supersharp77]

https://youtu.be/q-q01F9Mmb4
How does it play like that without knowledge?
Doesn't it look like the most knowledgable engine there is?

Don't be fooled....It's all "Smoke & Mirrors" Neural Net size is the key....

If the illusion is real
Let them give you a ride
If they got thunder appeal
Let them be on your side

I propose a "Real Test" #1 LC0 with Minimal NN size vs Chess engine with Minimal opening book
Or Test #2 LC0 with Super NN size (like you are currently testing and posting bogus results) vs Chess engine with Extensive opening Book...Ex cerebellum Lets check the results......shall we?

Or I could test like I am testing.

Testing each engine at their best configuration.

I don't understand your irrational logic when it comes to Lc0.

I want to know what each engine is able to bring with their best configuration.

I don't care if Lc0 is using magic beans to play as good as it plays.

What most of us want to know is even with magic beans. How strong is Lc0 playing.

All you want to do is handicap Lc0 as much as possible. In the hope it will justify your irrational bias, and statements against a chess engine.

And your only issue with my testing. Is that is shows with data how irrational you are being against Lc0.

Bias against LC0? ......Hahahahah heck I've spent months setting it up downloading it and playing test games with the thing...and watching it play and overall what have I learned from watching it play? Almost nothing!! Why because it is not a 'Chess Engine' at least as far as what we have come to know what a Chess Engine Is....My optinion is that based on how it 'plays" (I use that word lightly) It's mostly a NN database.. a piece square grid and a very very simple move generator/engine its.. not playing its moves over the board but picking moves based on games already played (move grid)
The thing doesn't think...it's not really profound it does make unusual moves on occasion..It is great in Zugzwang type positions..right now LC0 is have trouble beating Bikjump in my Chess for android apk...what doe you want me to do..say its better than Stockfish or Sugar or Houdini Or Komodo? My job is not to make LC0 look GOOD or GREAT..I'm searching for the BEST Chess engines under minimal conditions..Thats It...