TalkChess.com

Given Google 's history of faking scientific milestones (look AlphaZero), and engaging with pseudo-science, I have little surprise that most experts are extremely sceptical about Google' s latest PR campaign.

OK what we know : 1) Stockfish is the best engine in the world 2) LC0 guys did manage to reverse engineer A0 successfully 3) LC0 and A0 roughly at the same strength 4) NN are not less resource hungry than Alpha Beta 5) Scalability is about the same in both methods 6) Google has unacceptable behaviou...

= LC0 is 17 elo weaker than Stockfish 10. LOL 1 LCZero v19-TP-11248 11.0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 2 KomodoMCTS 2210.00 11.0 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 3 rofChade 1.023T 7.0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 4 Pedone 191118 6.5 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 1 ½ 5 Arasan CCC3 6.5 1 ½ 0 0 1 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ...

What's the problem anyway? You can have something like Tesla.

Giraffe project terminated because NN in Chess couldn't match conventional programming. There is no double meaning here. My question is whether a new approach similar to AlphaGo can make a comeback for chess programs as well and if not what are the differences apart of the different number of states...

So Matthew why you didn't manage to make Giraffe work?

Whenever Stockfish or earlier Houdini or Critter where doing a step forward Komodo follows in short course. Of course all this is totally accidental, nobody ever thought that might be a correlation. I am guessing that whenever Stockfish hit the wall, by sheer coincidence Komodo will lose steam also...

Whenever Stockfish or earlier Houdini or Critter where doing a step forward Komodo follows in short course. Of course all this is totally accidental, nobody ever thought that might be a correlation. I am guessing that whenever Stockfish hit the wall, by sheer coincidence Komodo will lose steam also.

Is it still promoting like world champion?
Then along with the price I think you can make a case for fraud.

So, in other words, you proved that your method(s) prove(s) nothing