Even Stockfish on a Raspberry Pi is a strong chess player, though. So AlphaZero has decent performance, we just need a better comparison. I don't think there is any fundamental reason a NN based system such as AlphaZero couldn't run on commodity hardware, so maybe that can happen.
--Jon
Historic Milestone: AlphaZero
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 4367
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:23 am
- Location: http://www.arasanchess.org
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
For some reason, I have no access to that table and the page as a whole.MikeGL wrote:I think Table 2 [ECO opennings] in the PDF would answer your argument.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Alpha chooses only 1.d4 and 1.Nf3, while Stockfish goes for 1.e4
Judging from this, I can say that Alpha is much weaker than SF in terms of software, and the only reason for the win is the very big hardware advantage.
All those 12 common opennings (on that Table 2) was played by AlphaZero against SF8, 100 times each. and only a total of 4 losses (out of 300 games) as white starting with 1.e4 (for AlphaZero) as shown on that table.
Very weird.
It seems the page recognises its detractors.
-
- Posts: 1010
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:49 pm
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:For some reason, I have no access to that table and the page as a whole.MikeGL wrote:I think Table 2 [ECO opennings] in the PDF would answer your argument.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Alpha chooses only 1.d4 and 1.Nf3, while Stockfish goes for 1.e4
Judging from this, I can say that Alpha is much weaker than SF in terms of software, and the only reason for the win is the very big hardware advantage.
All those 12 common opennings (on that Table 2) was played by AlphaZero against SF8, 100 times each. and only a total of 4 losses (out of 300 games) as white starting with 1.e4 (for AlphaZero) as shown on that table.
Very weird.
It seems the page recognises its detractors.
The uppermost right diagram is a French Defence [C00], won't fit on my screen.
*
Just download the PDF (right-click then choose download) then upload again at gmail then view it from there.
Otherwise, just download and view it on your PC using any PDF reader.
Last edited by MikeGL on Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
Finally I opened it, and the only thing I understood was is number 25 of their References list: Stockfish page/code.
Why don't they disclose what their evaluation is: that will be a big step towards knowing the truth.
Why don't they disclose what their evaluation is: that will be a big step towards knowing the truth.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
Was not it just 100 games?MikeGL wrote:edit: Not 60 games. 4 losses out of 300 gamesMilos wrote:3 in Sicilian and one in Reti, that is pretty indicative. Also by far the worst percentage of Alpha0 vs SF in those openings.MikeGL wrote:I think Table 2 [ECO opennings] in the PDF would answer your argument.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Alpha chooses only 1.d4 and 1.Nf3, while Stockfish goes for 1.e4
Judging from this, I can say that Alpha is much weaker than SF in terms of software, and the only reason for the win is the very big hardware advantage.
All those 12 common opennings, on that Table 2, was played by AlphaZero against SF8, 100 times each. and only a total of 4 losses (out of 60 games) as white starting with 1.e4 (for AlphaZero) as shown on that table.
50 games as white (and 50 as black) x 6 types of 1.e4 on that Table, if I understood the table correctly.
How can 100 games become 300 games?
Was a book used or not after all?
Too many unclear things.
It seems that hardware advantage was 16/1.
I am skeptical, because you can not just go tuning like that.
It simply does not work. You can improve Stockfish play by 200-300 elos or so with perfect tuning, maybe even 500, but not more.
What is necessary is to get rid of redundancies and introduce very specific evaluation patterns, otherwise it simply does not work.
So, basically, currently Alpha is around 3000 elos or so, maybe even lower.
That is weaker even than Fritz 12.
-
- Posts: 7220
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:31 am
Re: Historic Milestone: AlphaZero
--
Last edited by Henk on Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Historic Milestone: AlphaZero
Well, probably lower than 3000 elos.jdart wrote:Even Stockfish on a Raspberry Pi is a strong chess player, though. So AlphaZero has decent performance, we just need a better comparison. I don't think there is any fundamental reason a NN based system such as AlphaZero couldn't run on commodity hardware, so maybe that can happen.
--Jon
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
The training matches are different from the 100 games match with Stockfish.MikeGL wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:For some reason, I have no access to that table and the page as a whole.MikeGL wrote:I think Table 2 [ECO opennings] in the PDF would answer your argument.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Alpha chooses only 1.d4 and 1.Nf3, while Stockfish goes for 1.e4
Judging from this, I can say that Alpha is much weaker than SF in terms of software, and the only reason for the win is the very big hardware advantage.
All those 12 common opennings (on that Table 2) was played by AlphaZero against SF8, 100 times each. and only a total of 4 losses (out of 300 games) as white starting with 1.e4 (for AlphaZero) as shown on that table.
Very weird.
It seems the page recognises its detractors.
The uppermost right diagram is a French Defence [C00], won't fit on my screen.
*
Just download the PDF (right-click then choose download) then upload again at gmail then view it from there.
Otherwise, just download and view it on your PC using any PDF reader.
It is not at all clear to me where were books used and where not.
12 openings with reversed colours don't square in any way with 100 played games, so did they actually left some openings played more than others, or did not they flip colours?
-
- Posts: 2129
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 10:43 am
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
I'm sure opening books were not used...Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
The training matches are different from the 100 games match with Stockfish.
It is not at all clear to me where were books used and where not.
12 openings with reversed colours don't square in any way with 100 played games, so did they actually left some openings played more than others, or did not they flip colours?
In the early self-play games things like 1.a3, 1.a4, etc. were probably tried by AlphaZero...
eventually it learned that 1. e4 or 1. d4 had the highest success rates.
-
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:36 am
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
Time to place an order for one of these: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/dgx-station/
Unless Google starts selling TPU2s, which I doubt.....
Unless Google starts selling TPU2s, which I doubt.....