mwyoung wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:29 am
Uri Blass wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:50 am
mwyoung wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:09 pm
lkaufman wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:55 pm
mwyoung wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:35 pm
Laskos wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:57 pm
nabildanial wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:02 pm
Over 3000 Elo at only half a million games? Wow, that's insane.
It is insane. Imagine poor Larry, all he learned in dozens of years is well surclassed by this dirt quick net using dirt basic monte carlo search.
This is not a sad thing. This is what many people in chess have strive to achieve for many reasons. As I chess player. I know we are flawed in our thinking when it comes to chess. And are assumptions are our worst enemy in chess play. This only makes us stronger for every class of chess player.
I don't think that flawed thinking and wrong assumptions are the reason I (or any strong player) lose to 3000+ rated engines. The reason is that I struggle to search even one node per second! Of course my thinking and assumptions are far from perfect, I just don't think that they are worse than what engines "think" or "assume". Although I'm not sure I could beat Lc0 in a serious match even with it set to use policy network only, i.e. one node per move, so maybe my last sentence only applies to A/B engines.
I think we make many wrong assumptions in chess. Lets start with the biggest one.
Chess is played out....
I do not understand.
What is the assumption that you mean in this post?
Have you ever asked yourself why Lc0 and A0 have stirred so much excitement with Titled players. It is because Lc0 and A0 have show us what we did not expect.
Or Lc0 and A0 would be like any other chess programs. Humans play chess with certain assumptions, and a thinking of the way chess should be played. Chess programs of the past, and now like Lc0 and A0 have show us things we never considered before.
Uri, you have been on CCC as long as I can remember. How many times over the years have you seen people say X chess program is rated X. And this is almost perfect play. I can remember this many times, and today those chess programs stand no chance against the best chess programs of today. And today's engine will stand no change against tomorrows.
Its like when you argued that chess could be solved, and not grasping the meaning of what 10 ^120 means in terms of solving chess.
Remember it was not that many years ago, players like Capablanca, Fischer, Seirawan... and other thought chess was played out. And needed new variants to keep chess alive. Like Capablanca Chess, Fischer random chess, Seirawan chess...
Chess programs have shown that many of our human assumptions about chess are wrong. And are assumptions are many, but all are subsets of Chess is played out...
I agree that the assumption that we are close to perfect chess was clearly wrong in the past.
I simply did not understand that it is what you meant by chess is played out and this was the reason for my question.
The question if we are close to perfect chess today is a different question.
It is clear that at blitz today we are not close to perfect chess.
The only question is about long time control like TCEC time control.
The claim is that TCEC used some opening book to reduce the number of draws and with good opening book we are going to get almost 100% draws.
larry's words about it:
"It seems pretty clear that if you take the strongest Stockfish and the strongest NN engine on TCEC type hardware, and have them play a long match at TCEC time controls, the results will depend heavily on the openings. If you give each side a really good, deep opening book and have them play only the optimum or near optimum openings, nearly every game will end in a draw."
I am not sure about it and I have 2 problems:
1)How do you define if a book is a good deep opening book?
If you do not get the expected draw result in a game you can claim that the book was not good enough or was not deep enough so you need some definition that is not dependent on the result.
2)How do you define if an opening is the optimum or near the optimum opening?
It is possible that the best move is a move that the engines do not like because they do not see deep enough.
claim 2 of larry:
"The only way the stronger engine can win games is to play suboptimal lines with White to exit from book early and hope to win despite the poor opening moves."
Based on what he claims that a line is suboptimal line?
A line that the best engines do not suggest does not have to be a suboptimal line.
There should be a basis to claim that a line is suboptimal(for example if the engine that beat another engine lose against itself in the same line)
I guess larry means to lines that white has equality instead of minimal advantage and in this case I doubt if it is correct to call it a suboptimal line because the line does not lose and can help to win against weaker engines.