Something Hikaru Said

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

Moderator: Ras

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 10948
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Laskos »

lkaufman wrote:
Each extra doubling of speed (or each extra ply, which is similar) brings real but diminishing returns in elo due to the inherent drawishness of the initial position. If we start with a clearly won position like knight odds, we also get diminishing returns with increased speed/depth. An expert mathematician could probably extrapolate from data to estimate the elo gain that infinite speed (or 32 man tb) would obtain; in fact I think Kai did this to estimate about 800 elo remaining to perfect play. This would equate to adding another pawn and a fraction to a handicap, which gives an estimate of between 2 and 3 pawns as the proper handicap between a 2800 human and perfect play. You'll have to argue the accuracy of this extrapolation with Kai or another mathematician; it's beyond my ability to do this properly.
The gap I get in normal chess between Komodo and limiting value (32 men talebases) from extrapolation of diminishing returns was IIRC about 1000-1200 ELO points. Don got independently a similar value. Reliability is hard to quantify, as this is an extrapolation from the smooth behavior we observe now with diminishing returns.

One can then speak of "diminishing gains" of a regular engine playing normal chess in odds chess against humans. 300 ELO points gain in normal chess at 4000 ELO level (say from 4000 to 4300) gives a much smaller gain in odds than 300 ELO points at 3000 level. Say, from 0.5 pawn additional odds value at 3000 to 0.2 pawns at 4000. That's why 1000 ELO points from present 3300 level of Komodo to 4300 (already close to perfect engine) will bring additionally not much more than one additional pawn. In fact you must remember our simulations, when going from games in 10 seconds to games in 30 minutes increases the value of pawn odds from say 300 ELO points to 500 ELO points. Also, with these assumptions, the maximum odds value is not highly sensitive on the issue whether the perfect engine is 4400 or 4800, as at these ELO in normal chess the gains in odds against humans are very modest.
syzygy
Posts: 5728
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:56 pm

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by syzygy »

bob wrote:
syzygy wrote:
duncan wrote:
syzygy wrote: In an easily won position a top GM should certainly be able to play perfectly. I believe that knight odds is sufficient for a position to be "easily won" in this sense.
if a computer playing a top gm at knight odds can get the score down from 3 to 2 before the super gm can get it up from 3 to 4, the computer will win. currently a computer cannot do that. how do you know it will never be able to do that. ?
Engine scores are not physical measurements that can be forced up or down simply by throwing enough computer cycles against them.

If a position is won, you don't even have to play any moves to get the score up (from you point of view). Just let the opponent computer think long enough and its score will eventually drop to mate. Making the computer stronger will only make it realise more quickly how hopelessly lost it is.

So if in a particular position the computer today cannot get the score down from 3 to 2, then a future computer in that same position will not be able to get the score down from 23 to 22.
99% of the time the problem is the HUMAN will get the score down from 3 to 2, then from 2 to 1, and eventually to lost.
If that were true, also a GM would still have a chance to draw the game when behind a knight without compensation. In reality, even Carlsen resigns in such a position when playing a decent GM.
Why do you assume perfect play by the human?
Because I am assuming a the human is a healthy Carlsen playing at a reasonable time control.
User avatar
Nordlandia
Posts: 2822
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:38 pm
Location: Sortland, Norway

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Nordlandia »

If knight odds is too much of an advantage, - how about minus 25-50 centipawn subtracted from Knight value?

As of 2016 with high-end hardware, it seems that humans require decent compensation from the start to be able to equalize the engine.
User avatar
Nordlandia
Posts: 2822
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:38 pm
Location: Sortland, Norway

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Nordlandia »

[d]rn1qk1nr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/1NBQKBN1 w - - 0 1

Computer play the white pieces. (Castling rights is disabled for black)

Analysis by SugaR 2.0 64 POPCNT:

1.c4
-+ (-2.44 ++) Depth: 27/37 00:01:47 261MN
(, 11.01.2016)

The general consensus indicate pure knight odds is too much, therefore i rather propose something in-between 2-3 pawns in terms of eval.

The question is whether 2½ eval or 2¾ are sustainable for IM/GM level?
Uri Blass
Posts: 10895
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Uri Blass »

Nordlandia wrote:[d]rn1qk1nr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/1NBQKBN1 w - - 0 1

Computer play the white pieces. (Castling rights is disabled for black)

Analysis by SugaR 2.0 64 POPCNT:

1.c4
-+ (-2.44 ++) Depth: 27/37 00:01:47 261MN
(, 11.01.2016)

The general consensus indicate pure knight odds is too much, therefore i rather propose something in-between 2-3 pawns in terms of eval.

The question is whether 2½ eval or 2¾ are sustainable for IM/GM level?
I do not trust the evaluation of engines.

I believe that the IM/GM should be able to win it and certainly is not going to lose.
When you start to trade pieces it is easier for the human to win with the same evaluation.

I believe that even I can draw the following position against computers inspite of smaller advantage.

[d]4k2r/1ppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/4K2R w Kk - 0 1

Edit:In the original position it is not easy to trade the rooks because there are no targets so maybe the position is going to be harder for humans but the evaluation of computers is not something that you can decide based on it how difficult it is to win.
Uri Blass
Posts: 10895
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Uri Blass »

bob wrote:
Dirt wrote:
bob wrote:Someone should take a set of 1,000,000 GM games, and first locate positions where they are a piece ahead, and then analyze to see if they "played perfectly". I remain unconvinced after watching many of the old zonal and inter-zonal events were I watched GMs drop pieces and even queens on occasion. That's not perfect chess. I'm not drinking this "perfect play when a piece ahead" cool-aid without some sort of supporting evidence. "I believe" or "I think" is not evidence. If they can play perfectly when a piece ahead, they can play perfectly when material is even.
I'm fairly certain even you think a GM can win against a king and pawn with a full set of pieces, so somewhere there is a hard limit on what kind of odds a computer can give and still have a chance. Hikaru, and many of us, think that knight odds is beyond the limit. You apparently think it may be substantially more. Let's agree to disagree.
We are not talking about today, however. We are talking about way in the future. 20 years ago a GM could give pawn odds and win easily. 10 years ago it was give away nothing and come close to breaking even. Today we are nearly at the point of giving up a pawn is not enough to cause a program loss. What happens over the next 10 years, the next 100 years? Humans are getting NO stronger, but the hardware and software improvements continue to push computer ratings higher and higher.
I am not sure if humans will not get stronger in the future when they can learn a lot from chess engines.
bob
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by bob »

syzygy wrote:
bob wrote:
syzygy wrote:
duncan wrote:
syzygy wrote: In an easily won position a top GM should certainly be able to play perfectly. I believe that knight odds is sufficient for a position to be "easily won" in this sense.
if a computer playing a top gm at knight odds can get the score down from 3 to 2 before the super gm can get it up from 3 to 4, the computer will win. currently a computer cannot do that. how do you know it will never be able to do that. ?
Engine scores are not physical measurements that can be forced up or down simply by throwing enough computer cycles against them.

If a position is won, you don't even have to play any moves to get the score up (from you point of view). Just let the opponent computer think long enough and its score will eventually drop to mate. Making the computer stronger will only make it realise more quickly how hopelessly lost it is.

So if in a particular position the computer today cannot get the score down from 3 to 2, then a future computer in that same position will not be able to get the score down from 23 to 22.
99% of the time the problem is the HUMAN will get the score down from 3 to 2, then from 2 to 1, and eventually to lost.
If that were true, also a GM would still have a chance to draw the game when behind a knight without compensation. In reality, even Carlsen resigns in such a position when playing a decent GM.
Why do you assume perfect play by the human?
Because I am assuming a the human is a healthy Carlsen playing at a reasonable time control.
So you ASSUME he plays perfectly when healthy and at a reasonable time control? One can have a computer go over several of his games to verify that is not the case.
User avatar
Nordlandia
Posts: 2822
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:38 pm
Location: Sortland, Norway

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by Nordlandia »

Not sure whether double exchange odds is equivalent minor piece, even in case the pair of bishops is removed for the stronger side.
syzygy
Posts: 5728
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:56 pm

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by syzygy »

bob wrote:
syzygy wrote:
bob wrote:
syzygy wrote:
duncan wrote:
syzygy wrote: In an easily won position a top GM should certainly be able to play perfectly. I believe that knight odds is sufficient for a position to be "easily won" in this sense.
if a computer playing a top gm at knight odds can get the score down from 3 to 2 before the super gm can get it up from 3 to 4, the computer will win. currently a computer cannot do that. how do you know it will never be able to do that. ?
Engine scores are not physical measurements that can be forced up or down simply by throwing enough computer cycles against them.

If a position is won, you don't even have to play any moves to get the score up (from you point of view). Just let the opponent computer think long enough and its score will eventually drop to mate. Making the computer stronger will only make it realise more quickly how hopelessly lost it is.

So if in a particular position the computer today cannot get the score down from 3 to 2, then a future computer in that same position will not be able to get the score down from 23 to 22.
99% of the time the problem is the HUMAN will get the score down from 3 to 2, then from 2 to 1, and eventually to lost.
If that were true, also a GM would still have a chance to draw the game when behind a knight without compensation. In reality, even Carlsen resigns in such a position when playing a decent GM.
Why do you assume perfect play by the human?
Because I am assuming a the human is a healthy Carlsen playing at a reasonable time control.
So you ASSUME he plays perfectly when healthy and at a reasonable time control? One can have a computer go over several of his games to verify that is not the case.
Yes, at knight odds. Do you not understand the difference between perfect play at knight odds (or in KRK for that matter) and perfect play from the opening position?

And what is your comment on this:
syzygy wrote:
bob wrote:99% of the time the problem is the HUMAN will get the score down from 3 to 2, then from 2 to 1, and eventually to lost.
If that were true, also a GM would still have a chance to draw the game when behind a knight without compensation. In reality, even Carlsen resigns in such a position when playing a decent GM.
A knight up is generally speaking an easy win for any GM. At that level, a knight up is simply decisive and there is no practical chance of a mistake by the winning human GM (i.e. an error that changes the outcome of the game).
bob
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Something Hikaru Said

Post by bob »

syzygy wrote:
bob wrote:
syzygy wrote:
bob wrote:
syzygy wrote:
duncan wrote:
syzygy wrote: In an easily won position a top GM should certainly be able to play perfectly. I believe that knight odds is sufficient for a position to be "easily won" in this sense.
if a computer playing a top gm at knight odds can get the score down from 3 to 2 before the super gm can get it up from 3 to 4, the computer will win. currently a computer cannot do that. how do you know it will never be able to do that. ?
Engine scores are not physical measurements that can be forced up or down simply by throwing enough computer cycles against them.

If a position is won, you don't even have to play any moves to get the score up (from you point of view). Just let the opponent computer think long enough and its score will eventually drop to mate. Making the computer stronger will only make it realise more quickly how hopelessly lost it is.

So if in a particular position the computer today cannot get the score down from 3 to 2, then a future computer in that same position will not be able to get the score down from 23 to 22.
99% of the time the problem is the HUMAN will get the score down from 3 to 2, then from 2 to 1, and eventually to lost.
If that were true, also a GM would still have a chance to draw the game when behind a knight without compensation. In reality, even Carlsen resigns in such a position when playing a decent GM.
Why do you assume perfect play by the human?
Because I am assuming a the human is a healthy Carlsen playing at a reasonable time control.
So you ASSUME he plays perfectly when healthy and at a reasonable time control? One can have a computer go over several of his games to verify that is not the case.
Yes, at knight odds. Do you not understand the difference between perfect play at knight odds (or in KRK for that matter) and perfect play from the opening position?

And what is your comment on this:
syzygy wrote:
bob wrote:99% of the time the problem is the HUMAN will get the score down from 3 to 2, then from 2 to 1, and eventually to lost.
If that were true, also a GM would still have a chance to draw the game when behind a knight without compensation. In reality, even Carlsen resigns in such a position when playing a decent GM.
A knight up is generally speaking an easy win for any GM. At that level, a knight up is simply decisive and there is no practical chance of a mistake by the winning human GM (i.e. an error that changes the outcome of the game).
I simply understand the concept of "perfect play" period. And I don't believe any human is capable of that. So the question is how IMPERFECT will his play be? Enough to still lose with a pawn? Enough to lose with a knight? How can one say unequivocally that a human can never lose with a knight? I have watched human GMs fail to win KQ vs KR. Perfect is perfect, whether there is an extra knight or not. And I don't believe a human will be good enough to play perfectly against near-perfect (or perfect if we accept the original premise of 32 piece EGTBs) play from the starting position with one knight missing. I don't know that the machine will be able to win, but there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support that it will always lose. Absolutely ZERO. To make such a claim, there must be something to support it.