MikeGL wrote: Milos wrote: MikeGL wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Alpha chooses only 1.d4 and 1.Nf3, while Stockfish goes for 1.e4
Judging from this, I can say that Alpha is much weaker than SF in terms of software, and the only reason for the win is the very big hardware advantage.
I think Table 2 [ECO opennings] in the PDF would answer your argument.
All those 12 common opennings, on that Table 2, was played by AlphaZero against SF8, 100 times each. and only a total of 4 losses (out of 60 games) as white starting with 1.e4 (for AlphaZero) as shown on that table.
3 in Sicilian and one in Reti, that is pretty indicative. Also by far the worst percentage of Alpha0 vs SF in those openings.
edit: Not 60 games. 4 losses out of 300 games
50 games as white (and 50 as black) x 6 types of 1.e4 on that Table, if I understood the table correctly.
Was not it just 100 games?
How can 100 games become 300 games?
Was a book used or not after all?
Too many unclear things.
It seems that hardware advantage was 16/1.
I am skeptical, because you can not just go tuning like that.
It simply does not work. You can improve Stockfish play by 200-300 elos or so with perfect tuning, maybe even 500, but not more.
What is necessary is to get rid of redundancies and introduce very specific evaluation patterns, otherwise it simply does not work.
So, basically, currently Alpha is around 3000 elos or so, maybe even lower.
That is weaker even than Fritz 12.