Re: AlphaZero beats AlphaGo Zero, Stockfish, and Elmo
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:08 pm
Hosted by Your Move Chess & Games - chessusa.com
If you give the engines 10 minutes per move then I doubt so they play almost perfect chess then I guess that you will get less than 80% and 1 minute per move for 64 cores is probably stronger than 10 minutes per move for the 1 core.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Why not?Uri Blass wrote:I doubt if SF on 1024 cores is going to score even 50%Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:What would be the score between SF on 64 cores and SF on 1024 cores out of 100 games?kranium wrote:The fact that Google has created a chess playing entity that crushes SF is notable (and fascinating).Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:From what I gleaned from hardware comparisons, the advantage is 16/1.clumma wrote:That comparison is not straightforward, but this claim does not seem to be true. SF had 64 threads. I'm not up on the latest scaling behavior of the engine but that has got to be near saturation.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Alpha had considerable hardware advantage
Why would one want to run a similar very unfair match?
Only one thing comes to mind: that the company will want to advertise its colossal breakthrough with TPUs and artificial intelligence and then sell its products.
But then, the achievement is not there.
TPUs are not for sale, and (at the moment) are applied only to Googles deep learning and research projects,
except when Google donates them to research for free.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/17/the-t ... cientists/
You think the bigger-hardware SF would score less than 64 points?
I guess at least 80.
So what is so new?
They applied some big hardware, that is all.
The real strength of Alpha is 2850, so around spot 97 or so among engines.
97 is not such a bad achievement, after all.
Maybe after some point more cores are counter productive for stockfish.
I also doubt if it is possible to get at least 80 points against stockfish with 64 cores at 1 minute per move.
How much would SF 16-cores vs SF single core score, that is easily reproducible.
The experts claim the TPUs lack any SMP inefficiencies.
Well, in this case, they skipped straight to the technique that created that monster, i.e., self-play from the start rather than training with grandmaster games (hence the addition of Zero to its name).chessmobile wrote:Seems to play a mean game of chess. The endgames is where it excels. Many games looked equal to the naked eye but Alpha went on to win. If this thing follows the Go project then expect in a few months a monster that will beat it's current version quite easily.
I am just looking at the first game where Alpha Zero wins with Black, but it seems to me that it excels specifically in showing big holes in Stockfish'eval That that is in the endgame is not a big surprise.chessmobile wrote:Seems to play a mean game of chess. The endgames is where it excels. Many games looked equal to the naked eye but Alpha went on to win. If this thing follows the Go project then expect in a few months a monster that will beat it's current version quite easily.
Was it to inconvenient to download the latest SF? You could also beef SF up with the cerebellum book. I don't trust these Google people at all. They spend way to much time saying what great things they are doing for humanity. Pride comes before the fall.sovaz1997 wrote:Not 10-0.
Result: +28 =72 -0
Because it isn't an official release and has not been tested as exhaustively. That's the point of releases. Just take a look at the TCEC what happened to Komodo when going with a dev version.Leo wrote:Was it to inconvenient to download the latest SF?
there may be a fine lineLyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I would not be surprised, if in a year's time it also starts speaking and thinking of itself.Lion wrote:I agree with you.
Also what people who claim the HW was much faster..... what they don’t understand is that the thing learned from itself in a very short time!
What if we now give it 1 Year to further learn?
Side note, I looked at the games and they are really impressive!