Historic Milestone: AlphaZero

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6033
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Historic Milestone: AlphaZero

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:59 pm

jdart wrote:Even Stockfish on a Raspberry Pi is a strong chess player, though. So AlphaZero has decent performance, we just need a better comparison. I don't think there is any fundamental reason a NN based system such as AlphaZero couldn't run on commodity hardware, so maybe that can happen.

--Jon
Well, probably lower than 3000 elos.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6033
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Much weaker than Stockfish

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:02 pm

MikeGL wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov 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 300 games) as white starting with 1.e4 (for AlphaZero) as shown on that table.
For some reason, I have no access to that table and the page as a whole.
Very weird.
It seems the page recognises its detractors. :)
Image

The uppermost right diagram is a French Defence [C00], won't fit on my screen.

*
Just download the PDF (right-click then choose download) then upload again at gmail then view it from there.
Otherwise, just download and view it on your PC using any PDF reader.
The training matches are different from the 100 games match with Stockfish.
It is not at all clear to me where were books used and where not.
12 openings with reversed colours don't square in any way with 100 played games, so did they actually left some openings played more than others, or did not they flip colours?

User avatar
kranium
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:43 am

Re: Much weaker than Stockfish

Post by kranium » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:37 pm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
The training matches are different from the 100 games match with Stockfish.
It is not at all clear to me where were books used and where not.
12 openings with reversed colours don't square in any way with 100 played games, so did they actually left some openings played more than others, or did not they flip colours?
I'm sure opening books were not used...
In the early self-play games things like 1.a3, 1.a4, etc. were probably tried by AlphaZero...
eventually it learned that 1. e4 or 1. d4 had the highest success rates.

jhellis3
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:36 pm

Re: Much weaker than Stockfish

Post by jhellis3 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:50 pm

Time to place an order for one of these: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/dgx-station/

Unless Google starts selling TPU2s, which I doubt.....

Milos
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:47 am

Re: Much weaker than Stockfish

Post by Milos » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:55 pm

jhellis3 wrote:Time to place an order for one of these: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/dgx-station/

Unless Google starts selling TPU2s, which I doubt.....
If K80 is 5k$, that would be like 100k$ minimum starting price.

JJJ
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:47 am

Re: Historic Milestone: AlphaZero

Post by JJJ » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:58 pm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
jdart wrote:Even Stockfish on a Raspberry Pi is a strong chess player, though. So AlphaZero has decent performance, we just need a better comparison. I don't think there is any fundamental reason a NN based system such as AlphaZero couldn't run on commodity hardware, so maybe that can happen.

--Jon
Well, probably lower than 3000 elos.
I don't think any engine below 3000 elo would crush Stockfish with a strong hardware.

User avatar
MikeGL
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:49 pm

Re: Much weaker than Stockfish

Post by MikeGL » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:58 pm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:The training matches are different from the 100 games match with Stockfish.
Yes, the plot on the diagram is the training game, but 100 games per openning was played. 50-50, and the score below the diagram is on AlphaZero perspective.
12 openings with reversed colours don't square in any way with 100 played games, so did they actually left some openings played more than others, or did not they flip colours?
12 opennings x 100 = 1,200 games total.

jhellis3
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:36 pm

Re: Much weaker than Stockfish

Post by jhellis3 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:01 pm

If K80 is 5k$, that would be like 100k$ minimum starting price.
It is $70,000 AFAIK.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6033
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Much weaker than Stockfish

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:21 pm

kranium wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
The training matches are different from the 100 games match with Stockfish.
It is not at all clear to me where were books used and where not.
12 openings with reversed colours don't square in any way with 100 played games, so did they actually left some openings played more than others, or did not they flip colours?
I'm sure opening books were not used...
In the early self-play games things like 1.a3, 1.a4, etc. were probably tried by AlphaZero...
eventually it learned that 1. e4 or 1. d4 had the highest success rates.
How can you be sure if they don't specify it?
And it learned wrong. But 1.Nf3?

Is this engine still based on random choices? What perfect engine we are talking about then?

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6033
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Much weaker than Stockfish

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:26 pm

MikeGL wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:The training matches are different from the 100 games match with Stockfish.
Yes, the plot on the diagram is the training game, but 100 games per openning was played. 50-50, and the score below the diagram is on AlphaZero perspective.
12 openings with reversed colours don't square in any way with 100 played games, so did they actually left some openings played more than others, or did not they flip colours?
12 opennings x 100 = 1,200 games total.
Before we were talking about 300 and 100, now 1200 suddenly appears...
The 64/36 score certainly comes from 100 games, unless they assigned random points for a win.
And in that sample, I see Alpha playing just 1.d4 and 1.Nf3.

Post Reply