Probably true, with a few caveats.Laskos wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:04 pmIMO you defined the behavior of the two paradigms well. So, you do agree that in most tactically quiet, fairly balanced positions Leela is better (possibly much better)?Zenmastur wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:39 pm
A/B engines tend more towards micro-blunders when they don't "understand" the position. And they generally produce many micro blunders to lose the game. Death by a thousand small cuts. NN engines can produce gross blunders at ANY time, EVEN when they fully "understand" the position and/or have a commanding lead. When an A/B engine has a commanding lead it has an attainable goal and will rarely blunder it. When an A/B engine "thinks" the position is about even OR there is no clear goal for it, they tend to micro-blunder much more often. The nature, magnitude and number of the blunders tend to differ between the two types of engines.
I wish it were that simple!Doesn't this lead to "take Leela as the base engine, and SF as tactical backup" for analysis? We disagreed on that IIRC.
I am not a Corr Chess player, and I might be wrong.
I haven't tried analysis using both yet. It's on my to do list, but I want a new computer that's set up for this before I try it in earnest. From a practical point of view, my sense is that using Leela in the opening and the early middle game while checking it's lines of play with SF would be prudent. At least until a sizable advantage is obtained. Once this sub-goal is attained, SF can drive the advantage to fruition while checking with Leela to uncover any missed strategic lines of play. There are certain end games where SF has no clue, I think Leela can help with these.
A problem I see is when Leela thinks sac'ing material for a strategic advantage, sometimes SF will “see” (be able to prove) the wisdom of such moves. Other times, not so much. With a little practice I think a human can discern which course is correct. Trying to do this in a program is fraught with danger and great programming complexity. A special NN just for this might be useful if the idea is to meld the two types of engines into a monolithic and cohesive whole. I'm sure something like this is a way forward. How soon we see an effective implementation is another story.
It's actually a lot more complicated than this but I don't want to write a dissertation on the subject because my ideas are still in flux about many aspects of how this might/should work.