AlphaZero vs Stockfish

[Rodolfo Leoni]

This is at 1 minute per move on 1 core.

The difference is going to be clearly smaller with 64 cores and
I see no evidence that book at that time control is additional +50 elo.
Maybe book does not give much at long time control because the program can often find better moves by itself.

Smaller yes, but not 1/5 of it, maybe 1/2 of it.
How I see it on 64 cores (we also don't know if these are cores or threads, since they don't say which machine they used, if it is cores Numa was not used, Large Pages were also not used):
SFdev vs SF8 at least 30Elo, hash up to 10ELO, EGTBs up to 10 ELO, large pages 5-10Elo, better SMP implementation of SFdev compared to SF8 for large number of cores (>32) 5-10Elo, Cerebellum book 30Elo against conventional engine, but against A0 most probably more, coz A0 is well trained for only small amount of openings, and good book would help SF a lot to get much more draws with black.
If you add all this together it is easy 100Elo if not even more.

I am beginning to think the Alpha team was afraid the results would have been a lot less impressive if they had beefed things up for SF.

The graph here show difference between SF8 and latest SF dev is more than 100 ELO.

https://nextchessmove.com/dev-builds

No it doesn't, read again.

/John

You're right... It scales 50 points per square and it confused me a bit. It could be around 60 ELOs. Thanks.

[hgm]

It is rather funny to see how the notion had Stockfish would be better if it was using a book seems to prevale. Imagine how strong a Chess player I would be, if I could make Kasparov do the moves for me...

Wouldn't help much if Kasparov would only make first 10 moves, you'd almost equally suck at it.

Only 10 moves? He must of course play many more. What good would it be if he played only so few moves that it made no difference?

How can it possibly be a fair test of my Chess abilities if I have to play my own moves? Or if Kasparov only plays so few moves that it makes me suck equally? A differece that makes no difference is no differece!

[Uri Blass]

Alpha Zero can prob give a GM two minor odds and do favorably.

The perfect player probably is going to lose even against me with two minor odds(at least at 45+15 time control).

2 minors are a lot and
I believe that today even 1700 players can beat top programs with 2 minors odd with 45+15 time control

[Milos]

It is rather funny to see how the notion had Stockfish would be better if it was using a book seems to prevale. Imagine how strong a Chess player I would be, if I could make Kasparov do the moves for me...

Wouldn't help much if Kasparov would only make first 10 moves, you'd almost equally suck at it.

Only 10 moves? He must of course play many more. What good would it be if he played only so few moves that it made no difference?

How can it possibly be a fair test of my Chess abilities if I have to play my own moves? Or if Kasparov only plays so few moves that it makes me suck equally? A differece that makes no difference is no differece!

That comparison is so ridiculously wrong that it is nothing but trolling, I mean you comparing yourself to SF and Kasparov to strong opening book.
But ofc, whenever you don't have any useful argument for the discussion you come up with some kind of "wittiness" that probably only you could call funny.

[duncan]

what google's neural networks can achieve outside games. hope not too off topic.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ler-google


For all their success with Kepler, Nasa scientists knew that more planets lay hidden in the telescope’s observations, but the signals were so weak they were difficult to spot. This is where Google’s AI researchers came in. By training a neural network to learn what bona fide signals of distant planets looked like, Christopher Shallue, a Google researcher, helped Nasa to scour Kepler’s observations of 670 stars for planets that had previously been missed.

The search turned up two new planets around different stars, Kepler 90i, and another world named Kepler 80g, the sixth planet now known to orbit its star. The scientists now plan to search Kepler’s data on all 150,000 stars for other missed planets. A research paper on the findings will be published by the Astronomical Journal.

..


The search turned up two new planets around different stars, Kepler 90i, and another world named Kepler 80g, the sixth planet now known to orbit its star. The scientists now plan to search Kepler’s data on all 150,000 stars for other missed planets. A research paper on the findings will be published by the Astronomical Journal.

Suzanne Aigrain, an astrophysicist at Oxford University who was not involved with the research, said: “What is perhaps most exciting is that they are able to find planets that were previously missed, suggesting there are more yet to be found using this approach.”

Earlier this year, Kepler scientists announced the discovery of 219 more candidate planets, of which 10 appeared to be about the same size and temperature as Earth.

[FWCC]

What odds do YOU suggest? I was simply trying to state AlphaZero's uniqueness.

[hgm]

How can it possibly be a fair test of my Chess abilities if I have to play my own moves? Or if Kasparov only plays so few moves that it makes me suck equally? A differece that makes no difference is no differece!

That comparison is so ridiculously wrong that it is nothing but trolling, I mean you comparing yourself to SF and Kasparov to strong opening book.
But ofc, whenever you don't have any useful argument for the discussion you come up with some kind of "wittiness" that probably only you could call funny.

It is exactly as ridiculous/funny as this entire book discussion. It is claimed that one Chess-playig entity was significantly 'handicapped' because it had to play some of the moves itself, rather than having them played on its behalf by a completely different entity that is supposed to be better at them.