lkaufman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:19 pm
chrisw wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:56 pm
lkaufman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:54 pm
chrisw wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:02 pm
Werewolf wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:25 am
chrisw wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:14 am
When SF self plays, it’s not that much different from playing any good AB program, elo-wise. No reason for self-play to be wildly off, other than the usual inflation effects.
But
every reason for NN-NN self play to not be in accord with the AB world. You have to adjust, everything you know about chess is wrong. AZ showed it.
This isn't clear.
It’s not clear that AZ (and LZ) showed that everything you know about chess is wrong?!
Really? That’s not clear?
What AZ and LZ showed is that there are serious weaknesses in existing A/B programs, which they can exploit. As for what it means for humans playing chess, the A/B engines already showed that mobility and king safety can compensate for material to a greater degree than was generally believed, and the NN engines are just extending that trend. When I look at opening analysis by Lc0, in general it seems more like what we currently believe to be the best lines than does analysis by A/B engines. I am amazed at how rapidly long lines of modern theory appear as the best line in Lc0 analysis.
That would be a continuum. Disagree. The term “material” has been shown to be meaningless. It was a useful heuristic in a world where we had no choice but to find heuristics to work with, and everybody settled on assessing the “mtrl” and adding it to the “psnl” to gave the “eval”, the latter being more or less “accurate”. It kind of worked, some people thought it was Deus, but it was basically a nonsense.
Zero approach confirms that material, king safety and mobility et al are artificial constructs, and Zero approach completely discards them for a holistic statistic, very good most of the time, but with glaringly imbecilic errors in many specific cases.
Everything that was known was wrong, even the words are wrong. Theory, based on wrong words, wrong assessment criteria, is, unless the space is small enough, also going to be wrong.
Of course material, king safety and mobility et al are artificial constructs, as you say, but we always knew this.
Well, some of us did, but if mainstream talkchess was anything to go by, very few. The constructs were treated as real. Adding all the constructs together with “correct” weights to give “accuracy” plus mantra “chess is tactics” was and is not only wrong, it’s actually nonsense.
They are just the best we can do as human players,
nothing to do with computers, these were human heuristics, we’re very good at heuristics.
unable to do millions of calculations like a NN. The NNs can show us specific positions where our general rules lead to a wrong conclusion,
that’s funny. I would say the opposite, the NNs show how we were right and chess programming “community” as represented by talkchess, was wrong.
but I don't know of any new rules that human players can use as a result of the NNs,
that’s a continuum assumption. Tear up the old rules and realise that SF is not god.
except maybe to put a little less weight on material vs mobility and king safety. Can you state even one new "rule" or principle that human players can use as a result of the NNs that will result in an increase in Elo rating?
well, since the NN’s are completely incapable of communicating to us any form of “why this and not that” other that “I ran it through the network and the probability number came out higher”, you’re not going to get any sub-concept information (NN doesn't have sub concepts), you’ll only, at this stage, be able to get overviews. How about, be brave, or barrel on into complexity, or, the robot you are facing is not invincible and makes mistakes too? btw, I read a couple of days ago, you wrote LCZero, set to nodes=0, policy move, would win against you. I very much doubt it. Policy errors. Statistically very good, but quite capable of telling you a cat is a panda with 99% certainty every so often.