David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies (1½ minute snippet).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEMwF0 ... e=youtu.be
#1. TCEC technically is not the computer chess world championship. Stockfish isn't the ICGA world champion, Komodo is. Mark will not be amused.
#2. What does David Silver mean when he says: "this previous world champion"?
David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies
Thanks for the info.Rebel wrote:David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies (1½ minute snippet).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEMwF0 ... e=youtu.be
#1. TCEC technically is not the computer chess world championship. Stockfish isn't the ICGA world champion, Komodo is. Mark will not be amused.
#2. What does David Silver mean when he says: "this previous world champion"?
I am happy I have watched no videos of theirs and read no papers of theirs.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies
Btw., just to ask once more.
So far, the NN approach has only rendered more than modest results on a normal hardware: around 2400 at most in all cases(Giraffe, Romi, etc.).
Why would the very same approach suddenly perform much better on their hardware?
This simply lacks any sense, and it is all about:
- the hardware
- the weakened SF
- and, most importantly, the opening knowledge/book
SF algorithms, if adapted on their 5000 TPUs, would perform miracles.
I guess a 2400 elo engine should stay where it is: 800 elos below the top SF, Houdini and Komodo.
Sorry, but that is the simple reality.
So far, the NN approach has only rendered more than modest results on a normal hardware: around 2400 at most in all cases(Giraffe, Romi, etc.).
Why would the very same approach suddenly perform much better on their hardware?
This simply lacks any sense, and it is all about:
- the hardware
- the weakened SF
- and, most importantly, the opening knowledge/book
SF algorithms, if adapted on their 5000 TPUs, would perform miracles.
I guess a 2400 elo engine should stay where it is: 800 elos below the top SF, Houdini and Komodo.
Sorry, but that is the simple reality.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies
Btw., please just look closer at the 10 games provided, I just did that(thanks to Vincent for compiling the pgn):
- 4 games, numbers 3,5,6 and 10, feature a QID, where Alpha invariably pushes d4-d5 in the very same line on either move 6 or 7.
- in 2 games, SF cedes the pair of bishops as early as move 5 in a Ruy Lopez exchange, which is known to at most give equality to white
- 2 hopeless French played by SF
So that, in 8 games, opening knowledge decided for Alpha, and there were 5(!!) repeats, HALH of the published games/openings.
How many repeats are there in the rest of the unpublished games?
Is that the reason they don't want to publish them?
What if we see that Alpha won 13 games with the very same 6. d5 move in the QID out of a total of 28?
No those fully hopeless opening setups, what would the actual score be?
Given all SF handicaps?
Again, I can not believe a software for a 2400 level engine can perform miracles, simply count me out.
- 4 games, numbers 3,5,6 and 10, feature a QID, where Alpha invariably pushes d4-d5 in the very same line on either move 6 or 7.
- in 2 games, SF cedes the pair of bishops as early as move 5 in a Ruy Lopez exchange, which is known to at most give equality to white
- 2 hopeless French played by SF
So that, in 8 games, opening knowledge decided for Alpha, and there were 5(!!) repeats, HALH of the published games/openings.
How many repeats are there in the rest of the unpublished games?
Is that the reason they don't want to publish them?
What if we see that Alpha won 13 games with the very same 6. d5 move in the QID out of a total of 28?
No those fully hopeless opening setups, what would the actual score be?
Given all SF handicaps?
Again, I can not believe a software for a 2400 level engine can perform miracles, simply count me out.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies
Another major clue: in 6(!!) games out of 10, numbers 1,5,6,7,8 and 10, Alpha fianchettoes its bishop on Bg2.
How does it know Bg2 is a good move, the best actually?
Why does not it do the very same with black, not a single king side fianchetto, Bg7?
Is not the same pattern good for both white and black?
Why no fianchettos with black at all?
Well, I guess you know the answer: because openings books/human knowledge give advantage to white with such setup, but not black(all KIDs, Gruenfelds, etc. don't score very well overall in human databases).
I guess this is obvious proof they used human knowledge to train their openings.
If Alpha had trained and developed the Bg2/Bg7 pattern, why does it play it only with white then? Does not make sense, does it?
Because they rely on statistics and have no patterns at all, that is why. That is the quality of their NN.
Any guess why SF did not play a single king side fianchetto?
Well, I know the answer to this: because it is weak.
You want me to believe Alpha played strong chess: come one, it does not fianchetto with black on g7 and frequently prefers 1.d4(for the same reason, human statistics).
What do you think of that?
I think it is a shame.
How does it know Bg2 is a good move, the best actually?
Why does not it do the very same with black, not a single king side fianchetto, Bg7?
Is not the same pattern good for both white and black?
Why no fianchettos with black at all?
Well, I guess you know the answer: because openings books/human knowledge give advantage to white with such setup, but not black(all KIDs, Gruenfelds, etc. don't score very well overall in human databases).
I guess this is obvious proof they used human knowledge to train their openings.
If Alpha had trained and developed the Bg2/Bg7 pattern, why does it play it only with white then? Does not make sense, does it?
Because they rely on statistics and have no patterns at all, that is why. That is the quality of their NN.
Any guess why SF did not play a single king side fianchetto?
Well, I know the answer to this: because it is weak.
You want me to believe Alpha played strong chess: come one, it does not fianchetto with black on g7 and frequently prefers 1.d4(for the same reason, human statistics).
What do you think of that?
I think it is a shame.
-
- Posts: 4565
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:40 am
- Full name:
Re: David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies
I think that he means that Stockfish 8 was the previous TCEC winner, which would be correct, although you can have doubts that TCEC is not a FIDE recognized championship. Houdini now being the TCEC champion. I don't think Mark Lefler would have liked much being Alpha Zero's guinea pig instead of SF, although he would have liked learning from the games.Rebel wrote: #2. What does David Silver mean when he says: "this previous world champion"?
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
-
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:04 pm
Re: David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies
To me it sounds as brutal commerce, we AZ are now WCEelco de Groot wrote:I think that he means that Stockfish 8 was the previous TCEC winner, which would be correct, although you can have doubts that TCEC is not a FIDE recognized championship. Houdini now being the TCEC champion. I don't think Mark Lefler would have liked much being Alpha Zero's guinea pig instead of SF, although he would have liked learning from the games.Rebel wrote: #2. What does David Silver mean when he says: "this previous world champion"?
-
- Posts: 27796
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies
Because it actually is a very different approach.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:So far, the NN approach has only rendered more than modest results on a normal hardware: around 2400 at most in all cases(Giraffe, Romi, etc.).
Why would the very same approach suddenly perform much better on their hardware?
In AlphaZero the NN is used to guide the search. In Giraffe it was oly used for evaluation. In Romi Chess no was used at all.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies
This is just surmising. You don't know how they did it.hgm wrote:Because it actually is a very different approach.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:So far, the NN approach has only rendered more than modest results on a normal hardware: around 2400 at most in all cases(Giraffe, Romi, etc.).
Why would the very same approach suddenly perform much better on their hardware?
In AlphaZero the NN is used to guide the search. In Giraffe it was oly used for evaluation. In Romi Chess no was used at all.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: David Silver (Deepmind) inaccuracies
When you think Rebel was once close to being it...Rebel wrote:To me it sounds as brutal commerce, we AZ are now WCEelco de Groot wrote:I think that he means that Stockfish 8 was the previous TCEC winner, which would be correct, although you can have doubts that TCEC is not a FIDE recognized championship. Houdini now being the TCEC champion. I don't think Mark Lefler would have liked much being Alpha Zero's guinea pig instead of SF, although he would have liked learning from the games.Rebel wrote: #2. What does David Silver mean when he says: "this previous world champion"?
Perhaps I should challenge Alpha to a match, they might be running on theor 5000 TPUs, I guess I still have a fair chance, as it plays very weak in the opening.