But what does hold water is this, that decisions based primarily on ever-increasing, self-discovered positional principles will eventually triumph altogether, which is the exact impression we have from Alpha Zero games -- the development of (for all intents and purposes) a God-like understanding of chess. This has been the promise of computer chess from the very beginning.Albert Silver wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 4:11 pm... An argument such as ''this would be a great move if.... it didn't lose a piece" holds no water in my book.
LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 13447
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:02 pm
- Location: Dallas, Texas
- Full name: Matthew Hull
Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
Matthew Hull
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:29 am
- Location: Rialto, Venice
Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
Once Capablanca was asked: how many moves ahead can you see ?Albert Silver wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 4:11 pmOffhand, I'd say maybe, but that is a very speculative maybe. One cannot remove tactics from the equation, so oversights in its calculations will affect its decisions. An argument such as ''this would be a great move if.... it didn't lose a piece" holds no water in my book.
Capablanca said he can see only 1 move ahead, but confidently he was sure this was the best one.
I'm asking myself: Is now LCZ 325 the Great chess-software of all time at depth 0, like Capablanca was for sure ?
-
- Posts: 3019
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
- Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
Capablanca was also joking. It is a tiresome question from know-nothing reporters that every World Champion has had to answer time and time again. Capablanca was a fantastic calculator.Kanizsa wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 6:00 pmOnce Capablanca was asked: how many moves ahead can you see ?Albert Silver wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 4:11 pmOffhand, I'd say maybe, but that is a very speculative maybe. One cannot remove tactics from the equation, so oversights in its calculations will affect its decisions. An argument such as ''this would be a great move if.... it didn't lose a piece" holds no water in my book.
Capablanca said he can see only 1 move ahead, but confidently he was sure this was the best one.
I'm asking myself: Is now LCZ 325 the Great chess-software of all time at depth 0, like Capablanca was for sure ?
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
No, but I am now using a different setup and hardware. cuDNN engine Lc0, and different TC. Also, both SF and Komodo improved substantially since the earlier versions, especially SF, but LCZero nets seem to have even regressed since NN240s on this positional test suite. I remember I got a maximum of 128/200 solved, now only 123/200. Here are the results for top engines with 10s/position (standard engines on 4 i7 cores, Lc0 cuDNN on GTX 1060 GPU):
Openings200 positional test suite:
SF dev:
score=139/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=14.0 time=1.23 nodes=6174345]
Komodo 12:
score=138/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=13.6 time=0.94 nodes=4600354]
Lc0:
score=123/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=1.1 time=1.78 nodes=5771]
Other strong engines are below Lc0, for example Houdini 1.5a on 4 threads is significantly below:
Houdini 1.5a:
score=98/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=10.3 time=0.88 nodes=6513332]
All in all, Lc0 is still very strong on this suite, but SF and Komodo are to reckon with. You have to keep in mind that the opening suite is not purely positional, some sort of search is always involved, I just tried to minimize its impact by using databases of human openings and outcomes, checking at the same time with engines for no tactical fluctuations.
-
- Posts: 3019
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
- Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
Have you tried one of the test 20x256 nets? Here is the latest one posted today:Laskos wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 8:51 pmNo, but I am now using a different setup and hardware. cuDNN engine Lc0, and different TC. Also, both SF and Komodo improved substantially since the earlier versions, especially SF, but LCZero nets seem to have even regressed since NN240s on this positional test suite. I remember I got a maximum of 128/200 solved, now only 123/200. Here are the results for top engines with 10s/position (standard engines on 4 i7 cores, Lc0 cuDNN on GTX 1060 GPU):
Openings200 positional test suite:
SF dev:
score=139/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=14.0 time=1.23 nodes=6174345]
Komodo 12:
score=138/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=13.6 time=0.94 nodes=4600354]
Lc0:
score=123/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=1.1 time=1.78 nodes=5771]
Other strong engines are below Lc0, for example Houdini 1.5a on 4 threads is significantly below:
Houdini 1.5a:
score=98/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=10.3 time=0.88 nodes=6513332]
All in all, Lc0 is still very strong on this suite, but SF and Komodo are to reckon with. You have to keep in mind that the opening suite is not purely positional, some sort of search is always involved, I just tried to minimize its impact by using databases of human openings and outcomes, checking at the same time with engines for no tactical fluctuations.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ueg-m ... fPjw6/view
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
Thanks, maybe you will keep me updated on these nets. I will test soon, one game here at LTC has to proceed to the end.Albert Silver wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 9:16 pmHave you tried one of the test 20x256 nets? Here is the latest one posted today:Laskos wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 8:51 pmNo, but I am now using a different setup and hardware. cuDNN engine Lc0, and different TC. Also, both SF and Komodo improved substantially since the earlier versions, especially SF, but LCZero nets seem to have even regressed since NN240s on this positional test suite. I remember I got a maximum of 128/200 solved, now only 123/200. Here are the results for top engines with 10s/position (standard engines on 4 i7 cores, Lc0 cuDNN on GTX 1060 GPU):
Openings200 positional test suite:
SF dev:
score=139/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=14.0 time=1.23 nodes=6174345]
Komodo 12:
score=138/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=13.6 time=0.94 nodes=4600354]
Lc0:
score=123/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=1.1 time=1.78 nodes=5771]
Other strong engines are below Lc0, for example Houdini 1.5a on 4 threads is significantly below:
Houdini 1.5a:
score=98/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=10.3 time=0.88 nodes=6513332]
All in all, Lc0 is still very strong on this suite, but SF and Komodo are to reckon with. You have to keep in mind that the opening suite is not purely positional, some sort of search is always involved, I just tried to minimize its impact by using databases of human openings and outcomes, checking at the same time with engines for no tactical fluctuations.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ueg-m ... fPjw6/view
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
No, it performs worse by 3-4 positions on both tactical and positional 200 positions test suites. The speed is 2-2.2 times lower in my setup. Probably by now a bit lower result with larger net is expected, as the weights are from smaller nets. Hopefully it will improve soon.Laskos wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 9:56 pmThanks, maybe you will keep me updated on these nets. I will test soon, one game here at LTC has to proceed to the end.Albert Silver wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 9:16 pmHave you tried one of the test 20x256 nets? Here is the latest one posted today:Laskos wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 8:51 pm
No, but I am now using a different setup and hardware. cuDNN engine Lc0, and different TC. Also, both SF and Komodo improved substantially since the earlier versions, especially SF, but LCZero nets seem to have even regressed since NN240s on this positional test suite. I remember I got a maximum of 128/200 solved, now only 123/200. Here are the results for top engines with 10s/position (standard engines on 4 i7 cores, Lc0 cuDNN on GTX 1060 GPU):
Openings200 positional test suite:
SF dev:
score=139/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=14.0 time=1.23 nodes=6174345]
Komodo 12:
score=138/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=13.6 time=0.94 nodes=4600354]
Lc0:
score=123/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=1.1 time=1.78 nodes=5771]
Other strong engines are below Lc0, for example Houdini 1.5a on 4 threads is significantly below:
Houdini 1.5a:
score=98/200 [averages on correct positions: depth=10.3 time=0.88 nodes=6513332]
All in all, Lc0 is still very strong on this suite, but SF and Komodo are to reckon with. You have to keep in mind that the opening suite is not purely positional, some sort of search is always involved, I just tried to minimize its impact by using databases of human openings and outcomes, checking at the same time with engines for no tactical fluctuations.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ueg-m ... fPjw6/view
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:17 am
- Location: Novi Sad, Serbia
- Full name: Karlo Balla
Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
No. It was not Capablanca who said that. It was Charles Jaffe.Kanizsa wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 6:00 pmOnce Capablanca was asked: how many moves ahead can you see ?Albert Silver wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 4:11 pmOffhand, I'd say maybe, but that is a very speculative maybe. One cannot remove tactics from the equation, so oversights in its calculations will affect its decisions. An argument such as ''this would be a great move if.... it didn't lose a piece" holds no water in my book.
Capablanca said he can see only 1 move ahead, but confidently he was sure this was the best one.
I'm asking myself: Is now LCZ 325 the Great chess-software of all time at depth 0, like Capablanca was for sure ?
‘Apropos is the story of the game between the invincible Capablanca and Charles Jaffe, pride of the East Side. Capa forgot he was invincible: he lost. A reporter who was present asked the Cuban, “How far do you see ahead?” Capa replied impressively, “About ten moves”. Then the reporter went over to Jaffe: “How far do you see ahead?” Much to everyone’s surprise, the reply was, “Only one move”. This didn’t make sense. “How could a player who can see only one move ahead defeat another who can delve so deeply?” Here Jaffe explained: “I see only one move ahead, but always the best move.”
That is sufficient.’
Best Regards,
Karlo Balla Jr.
Karlo Balla Jr.
-
- Posts: 931
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:46 pm
- Location: New York
- Full name: Álvaro Begué (RuyDos)
Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
That seems to not be right either. If you are interested in the origin of the quip, you should read this: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extr ... ahead.htmlKarlo Bala wrote: ↑Fri May 25, 2018 2:02 amNo. It was not Capablanca who said that. It was Charles Jaffe.Kanizsa wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 6:00 pmOnce Capablanca was asked: how many moves ahead can you see ?Albert Silver wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 4:11 pm
Offhand, I'd say maybe, but that is a very speculative maybe. One cannot remove tactics from the equation, so oversights in its calculations will affect its decisions. An argument such as ''this would be a great move if.... it didn't lose a piece" holds no water in my book.
Capablanca said he can see only 1 move ahead, but confidently he was sure this was the best one.
I'm asking myself: Is now LCZ 325 the Great chess-software of all time at depth 0, like Capablanca was for sure ?
‘Apropos is the story of the game between the invincible Capablanca and Charles Jaffe, pride of the East Side. Capa forgot he was invincible: he lost. A reporter who was present asked the Cuban, “How far do you see ahead?” Capa replied impressively, “About ten moves”. Then the reporter went over to Jaffe: “How far do you see ahead?” Much to everyone’s surprise, the reply was, “Only one move”. This didn’t make sense. “How could a player who can see only one move ahead defeat another who can delve so deeply?” Here Jaffe explained: “I see only one move ahead, but always the best move.”
That is sufficient.’
-
- Posts: 41473
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... 4-bit_w323
Leela Chess 0.10 64-bit w323 #110‑111 (2651 +19 −19)
Leela Chess 0.10 64-bit w323 #110‑111 (2651 +19 −19)
gbanksnz at gmail.com