I declare that HCE is dead...

[mvanthoor]

the answer I have is very unpopular. and it stems from an opinion from a certain group (elites/left/whatever name is popular these days) about human nature that is being indoctrinated into the psyche of people around the world.
that humans aren't smart enough, aren't wise enough to take care of themselves or solve world wide problems. that in some cases, the human, is suppose to just give up and let someone/something/an alien/a computer make those choices.

Who is saying that?

Why wouldn't humans be smart enough? Newton and Euler did things in maths in 1685 and 1750 that I can't even reproduce even if I studied maths for 300 years. Bach contra-punctual music around 1725 that has never seen its equal. And that stuff was 300+ years ago. Nowadays, the smartest humans are as smart as these greats where, but NOW, we're backed by the calculation power of the computer. We can prove that we are correct (or not) faster and faster, so we can become smarter faster and faster...

... as long as you control the system, and use it for things that can be proven mathematically.

because whatever else is making those choices will OBVIOUSLY be smarter than a HUMAN making those decisions. I mean, hell, how many movies are going to tell us that aliens are smarter than us, that dolphins have more intellect. ETC ETC ETC ... and now A.I. is being thrown out there as being smarter than humans at solving these problems. again, in the eyes of these super elites, the rest of humanity is just too STUPID to solve these problems.

Aliens don't have to be smarter than us. If they can reach earth and we can't reach their planet, they are more advanced in the sciences, though. Computers/neural networks are not smarter than we are; they are only faster, and able to keep track of more things at once, thus they can solve bigger mathematical problems than we can.

A neural network still can't come up with an original song. They can create music, but it will sound like an amalgamation of the music it has been fed during the learning process.

in other words, what we have is a bunch of people who LITERALLY BELIEVE and were taught at some point that humans just can't be smart enough to handle these problems.

Again; who are these people?

[toliveanddie76]

the answer I have is very unpopular. and it stems from an opinion from a certain group (elites/left/whatever name is popular these days) about human nature that is being indoctrinated into the psyche of people around the world.
that humans aren't smart enough, aren't wise enough to take care of themselves or solve world wide problems. that in some cases, the human, is suppose to just give up and let someone/something/an alien/a computer make those choices.

Who is saying that?

Why wouldn't humans be smart enough? Newton and Euler did things in maths in 1685 and 1750 that I can't even reproduce even if I studied maths for 300 years. Bach contra-punctual music around 1725 that has never seen its equal. And that stuff was 300+ years ago. Nowadays, the smartest humans are as smart as these greats where, but NOW, we're backed by the calculation power of the computer. We can prove that we are correct (or not) faster and faster, so we can become smarter faster and faster...

... as long as you control the system, and use it for things that can be proven mathematically.

because whatever else is making those choices will OBVIOUSLY be smarter than a HUMAN making those decisions. I mean, hell, how many movies are going to tell us that aliens are smarter than us, that dolphins have more intellect. ETC ETC ETC ... and now A.I. is being thrown out there as being smarter than humans at solving these problems. again, in the eyes of these super elites, the rest of humanity is just too STUPID to solve these problems.

Aliens don't have to be smarter than us. If they can reach earth and we can't reach their planet, they are more advanced in the sciences, though. Computers/neural networks are not smarter than we are; they are only faster, and able to keep track of more things at once, thus they can solve bigger mathematical problems than we can.

A neural network still can't come up with an original song. They can create music, but it will sound like an amalgamation of the music it has been fed during the learning process.

in other words, what we have is a bunch of people who LITERALLY BELIEVE and were taught at some point that humans just can't be smart enough to handle these problems.

Again; who are these people?

the same people who you say made this NN in the netherlands... who believed that the NN could solve a problem

[connor_mcmonigle]

Do others find their HCE's now virtually pointless?

The tuner in combination with lots of evaluation terms in the HCE works like sort of a poor man's neural network.

While it may not be necessary in the end, you do need something to actually get your engine going. A good set of tapered PST's is enough. Still, you need to understand what the HCE does, before you go to work on a neural network, or you'll be developing something you don't even know what it is about.

I'm not sure if its depressing, or liberating.

It's frightening. The entire world is going full steam ahead throwing neural networks and AI against every problem imaginable, while many people don't know (or care) the massive impact this can have. In the Netherlands, we got a nice little lesson regarding that, but I'm not sure if anyone learned anything...

This: Computer says "No"

With neural networks in the system, nobody knows _why_ the computer says "No", but everybody assumes it's correct.

the answer I have is very unpopular. and it stems from an opinion from a certain group (elites/left/whatever name is popular these days) about human nature that is being indoctrinated into the psyche of people around the world.
that humans aren't smart enough, aren't wise enough to take care of themselves or solve world wide problems. that in some cases, the human, is suppose to just give up and let someone/something/an alien/a computer make those choices. because whatever else is making those choices will OBVIOUSLY be smarter than a HUMAN making those decisions. I mean, hell, how many movies are going to tell us that aliens are smarter than us, that dolphins have more intellect. ETC ETC ETC ... and now A.I. is being thrown out there as being smarter than humans at solving these problems. again, in the eyes of these super elites, the rest of humanity is just too STUPID to solve these problems.

in other words, what we have is a bunch of people who LITERALLY BELIEVE and were taught at some point that humans just can't be smart enough to handle these problems.

A strange opinion to present in a computer chess forum given that chess is a domain where computers have far surpassed human capability for decades...

[toliveanddie76]

A strange opinion to present in a computer chess forum given that chess is a domain where computers have far surpassed human capability for decades...

right. I said it was an unpopular opinion. no doubt about it.
what I would like to draw your attention to is a belief that we as humans won't ever evolve to surpass the computer. very deep subject on many levels.

[towforce]

...I would like to draw your attention to is a belief that we as humans won't ever evolve to surpass the computer. very deep subject on many levels.

Do you think humans will evolve to be able to lift heavier weights than a crane or run faster than a racing car? Of course not!

My opinion is that in the foreseeable future, the most successful people will be those who use the AI and do the things that it recommends them to do. I further recommend that everyone reading this starts adopting this as their life strategy right away. I also claim that this remark is on topic in this thread, so the moderators cannot delete it!

[AndrewGrant]

...I would like to draw your attention to is a belief that we as humans won't ever evolve to surpass the computer. very deep subject on many levels.

Do you think humans will evolve to be able to lift heavier weights than a crane or run faster than a racing car? Of course not!

My opinion is that in the foreseeable future, the most successful people will be those who use the AI and do the things that it recommends them to do. I further recommend that everyone reading this starts adopting this as their life strategy right away. I also claim that this remark is on topic in this thread, so the moderators cannot delete it!

If by evolve, he truely means the human genome... then its possible we eventually become smarter and better at chess than the computers of today. But... surely by that point computers will have gotten even better. We might be much smarter in millions or billions of years (if we don't nuke ourselves, burn to death, create a plague, or get knocked out of orbit), but I cannot imagine we ever OUT PACE technology. Simply makes no sense to me. Evolution is slow.

[Milos]

A strange opinion to present in a computer chess forum given that chess is a domain where computers have far surpassed human capability for decades...

right. I said it was an unpopular opinion. no doubt about it.
what I would like to draw your attention to is a belief that we as humans won't ever evolve to surpass the computer. very deep subject on many levels.

You seems to be suffering from the most basic misunderstanding of what AI is. AI is not intelligence despite its name, AI is not smart.
AI is a tool. The same as calculator just more powerful in terms of number of computations per second.
In a mathematical sense it's just a very sophisticated non linear multi input/output function that is (with some exceptions) totally deterministic.
That function can do only things it has been trained to do. Nothing more, nothing less. All the mysticism ppl attribute to it comes from lack of understanding. The fact that function is so complex that human mind can't abstract it with something simpler doesn't make it smarter at all nor does it make humans stupid.

[Madeleine Birchfield]

I see no evidence NNUE is inherently stronger than a (very) highly developed HCE. For Stockfish, the advent of NNUE did deliver an equivalent of 5 or so years of HCE development almost instantly, but for all we know, in a parallel universe where NNUE was never invented there might yet appear a 2025 HCE version of Stockfish which is stronger than the 2025 NNUE version of Stockfish.

From the perspective of "right here, right now", though - and that's what matters - developing HCE probably makes little sense if Elo is all one is after.

I like what Stoofvlees has been doing. If I understand correctly, it's hand-coded extraction of features with NN scoring. This sort of hybrid approach may be the most promising in the long run IMO.

Hybrids are already the most promising approach in computer go, where things like ladders are coded directly by hand into the eval, as is the case in KataGo, as pure neural network based go engines such as AlphaZero and LeelaZero have trouble understanding ladders.

Stockfish is an example of a hybrid engine in chess, it uses both its nnue code and its hce code in its evaluation, and tests on fishtest dating back to around twn months ago show that the hybrid is stronger than either pure nnue or pure hce.

Of course, theoretically, handcrafted will be stronger, because one can handcraft a 32 men tablebase if one has enough memory storage on hand, and a 32 men tablebase would always outperform a neural net based engine.

[Kotlov]

All the mysticism ppl attribute to it comes from lack of understanding.

...like a humans brain

[Tord]

Pointless only when trying to get the highest Elo overall. Others may prefer to have the ability to create specific playing personalities, whether human-like, anti-human, or Tal-like play-to-win attacking styles that the HCE could allow by means of tunable parameters.

I see no reason to believe that HCE and tunable parameters are necessarily the best or only way to achieve such goals. You could optimize a neural network for something else than pure results. A simple approach that would be interesting to try is to not just score wins as 1 and losses as 0 during training, but to score stylish wins (where "stylish" means "winning by using the playing style I'm trying to produce") higher than plain wins. You would still need to be creative and do some hard work, but instead of hand-crafting evaluation features, you would have to work on quantifying the stylishness of a game. What exactly is a Tal-like attacking win, and how do you recognise it in computer code?