Something Hikaru Said

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
rcmaddox
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:59 pm
Location: Winder, GA
Full name: Robert C. Maddox

Something Hikaru Said

Post by rcmaddox » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:22 pm

Just minutes before the games yesterday, in the Chess.com chat, Hikaru responded to members speculating about how long it will be before a chess engine can give piece odds to a GM.

He was concise. He said it will never happen. Hikaru believes that piece odds will now and forever favor the GM.

Any dissenters?

royb
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:53 pm

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by royb » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:31 pm

Never is a very long time as the saying goes.

Surely that time will come and I believe it will be well within Hikaru's lifetime (I would guess even much sooner -- within 10 years). No real knowledge involved in that guess, other than a knowledge of how software and hardware has improved over the last 10 years as a rough estimate.

Dan Cooper
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:15 am

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Dan Cooper » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:35 pm

Sounds like a challenge to me.

bob
Posts: 20923
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by bob » Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:35 pm

Dan Cooper wrote:Sounds like a challenge to me.
How that challenge has changed over the years:

1970: no computer will be able to beat an IM (David Levy) within 10 years (was actually stretched to maybe 15 years).

1980 or so: No computer will be able to beat a GM. Until Deep Thought.

1980 or so: No computer will ever be able to beat the current world champion (a GM obviously) and backed up by the Fredkin Foundation prize. Again, along came deep thought in 1997.

2016: No computer will ever be able to beat a GM if he is given knight odds.

2025: No computer will ever be able to beat a GM if he is given queen odds.

:)

etc...

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 10949
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Laskos » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:28 pm

bob wrote:
Dan Cooper wrote:Sounds like a challenge to me.
How that challenge has changed over the years:

1970: no computer will be able to beat an IM (David Levy) within 10 years (was actually stretched to maybe 15 years).

1980 or so: No computer will be able to beat a GM. Until Deep Thought.

1980 or so: No computer will ever be able to beat the current world champion (a GM obviously) and backed up by the Fredkin Foundation prize. Again, along came deep thought in 1997.

2016: No computer will ever be able to beat a GM if he is given knight odds.

2025: No computer will ever be able to beat a GM if he is given queen odds.

:)

etc...
Actually Naka seems right to me for GMs above ELO 2700, at least against simple 32 men tablebases and aside occasional obvious large blunders by GM. Maybe a "GM-fooling" super-engine can be set in the future, to play nasty tricks on humans, and in this case Naka is still right for the case of a future GM who learns a bit how to play against such an engine.

bob
Posts: 20923
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by bob » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:29 pm

Laskos wrote:
bob wrote:
Dan Cooper wrote:Sounds like a challenge to me.
How that challenge has changed over the years:

1970: no computer will be able to beat an IM (David Levy) within 10 years (was actually stretched to maybe 15 years).

1980 or so: No computer will be able to beat a GM. Until Deep Thought.

1980 or so: No computer will ever be able to beat the current world champion (a GM obviously) and backed up by the Fredkin Foundation prize. Again, along came deep thought in 1997.

2016: No computer will ever be able to beat a GM if he is given knight odds.

2025: No computer will ever be able to beat a GM if he is given queen odds.

:)

etc...
Actually Naka seems right to me for GMs above ELO 2700, at least against simple 32 men tablebases and aside occasional obvious large blunders by GM. Maybe a "GM-fooling" super-engine can be set in the future, to play nasty tricks on humans, and in this case Naka is still right for the case of a future GM who learns a bit how to play against such an engine.

My take from watching this stuff for 50 years now is that humans make mistakes, no matter how strong they are. A knight up and then they drop a pawn, and then another pawn, and before you know it... The only obvious strategy to me is to trade whenever possible so that the knight becomes more and more important. But most computer programs understand the "when behind in material, trade pawns but not pieces and vice-versa" which might tend those games to draws more than anything else.

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 10949
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Laskos » Sat Jan 09, 2016 5:02 am

bob wrote:
Laskos wrote:
bob wrote:
Dan Cooper wrote:Sounds like a challenge to me.
How that challenge has changed over the years:

1970: no computer will be able to beat an IM (David Levy) within 10 years (was actually stretched to maybe 15 years).

1980 or so: No computer will be able to beat a GM. Until Deep Thought.

1980 or so: No computer will ever be able to beat the current world champion (a GM obviously) and backed up by the Fredkin Foundation prize. Again, along came deep thought in 1997.

2016: No computer will ever be able to beat a GM if he is given knight odds.

2025: No computer will ever be able to beat a GM if he is given queen odds.

:)

etc...
Actually Naka seems right to me for GMs above ELO 2700, at least against simple 32 men tablebases and aside occasional obvious large blunders by GM. Maybe a "GM-fooling" super-engine can be set in the future, to play nasty tricks on humans, and in this case Naka is still right for the case of a future GM who learns a bit how to play against such an engine.

My take from watching this stuff for 50 years now is that humans make mistakes, no matter how strong they are. A knight up and then they drop a pawn, and then another pawn, and before you know it... The only obvious strategy to me is to trade whenever possible so that the knight becomes more and more important. But most computer programs understand the "when behind in material, trade pawns but not pieces and vice-versa" which might tend those games to draws more than anything else.
Knight odds were played recently and 2150-2200 ELO FM beat Komodo on 24 cores (~3400 ELO CCRL or CEGT) consistently. The value of such odds against an FM is inferred from this and from some simulations as at least 1300 (computer) ELO points, probably more. Also, simple rule is that the ELO value of the handicap increases with strength. Say, Knight odds are less than 600 ELO points if played between an 1800 ranking and 1200 ranking. I believe that Knight odds value given to a top GM (2750+) are at lest 1800 computer ELO points, probably more, and to beat such a GM the engines would need to be above CCRL ELO 4600, which in several extrapolations, is above 32 men tablebasses.

I belive the biggest odds a perfect engine (simple 32 men tablebases) can give to a top GM and still win on average would be 2 important pawns, f7 pawn + c7 pawn. Maybe even this is too much to give to a prepared Carlsen.

However I do agree that such things as blunders, bad time management, the inadequate style of playing can make GM lose, but a human can also pass out playing against 32 men tablebases, I am not addressing these issues.

Dirt
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Irvine, CA, USA

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Dirt » Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:58 am

Laskos wrote:Actually Naka seems right to me for GMs above ELO 2700, at least against simple 32 men tablebases and aside occasional obvious large blunders by GM.
It probably depends on the time control. At a one minute game even Hikaru would probably lose today. At game in two hours plus increment it will probably never happen.
Deasil is the right way to go.

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 10949
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Laskos » Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:59 am

Dirt wrote:
Laskos wrote:Actually Naka seems right to me for GMs above ELO 2700, at least against simple 32 men tablebases and aside occasional obvious large blunders by GM.
It probably depends on the time control. At a one minute game even Hikaru would probably lose today. At game in two hours plus increment it will probably never happen.
Yes, I am talking here always only about 2 hour normal time control.

Sean Evans
Posts: 1777
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Sean Evans » Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:08 am

rcmaddox wrote:Just minutes before the games yesterday, in the Chess.com chat, Hikaru responded to members speculating about how long it will be before a chess engine can give piece odds to a GM.

He was concise. He said it will never happen. Hikaru believes that piece odds will now and forever favor the GM.

Any dissenters?
Hikaru recently lost to Komodo in an odds match.

http://www.chess.com/news/komodo-beats- ... attle-1331

Post Reply