1)Chess machines are equal to human+machines in playing correspondence chess
2)Chess machine are equal to union of humans+chess machines in developing better chess engines.
3)Chess machines are equal to union of humans+chess machines in teaching humans to play chess better in OTB chess.
I think that we are very close to 1.
When do you expect 2 and 3 to happen so we need no humans to make engines or to teach chess?
Future progress of chess software in chess
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 10413
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
- Location: Tel-Aviv Israel
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:37 pm
- Location: Ukraine
- Full name: Maksim Korzh
Re: Future progress of chess software in chess
Most likely when the processing power would be enough to train NNs to replace "hard coded knowledge" in a domain, do you agree?Uri Blass wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:24 am 1)Chess machines are equal to human+machines in playing correspondence chess
2)Chess machine are equal to union of humans+chess machines in developing better chess engines.
3)Chess machines are equal to union of humans+chess machines in teaching humans to play chess better in OTB chess.
I think that we are very close to 1.
When do you expect 2 and 3 to happen so we need no humans to make engines or to teach chess?
Didactic chess engines:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Maksim_Korzh
Chess programming YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB9-pr ... KKqDgXhsMQ
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Maksim_Korzh
Chess programming YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB9-pr ... KKqDgXhsMQ
-
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:20 am
- Location: New Hampshire
Re: Future progress of chess software in chess
Didn't we already reach #2 when Alpha Zero taught itself to play?
-
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:48 pm
- Full name: Alayan Feh
Re: Future progress of chess software in chess
2 and 3 are absurdly hard. They require humans to become absolutely worthless compared to automated methods at making better engines and at teaching humans. It won't happen in our lifetimes and may never happen at all.
1 is just about playing strong chess moves, we're close to it (already there from the start position which is a dead draw for top correspondence players)
1 is just about playing strong chess moves, we're close to it (already there from the start position which is a dead draw for top correspondence players)
-
- Posts: 12566
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Future progress of chess software in chess
I think that the problem with #2 and #3 is that nobody is working on it.Uri Blass wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:24 am 1)Chess machines are equal to human+machines in playing correspondence chess
2)Chess machine are equal to union of humans+chess machines in developing better chess engines.
3)Chess machines are equal to union of humans+chess machines in teaching humans to play chess better in OTB chess.
I think that we are very close to 1.
When do you expect 2 and 3 to happen so we need no humans to make engines or to teach chess?
As for #1, I do not know if anyone has measured that, but I also guess it depends on the player.
Some players will surely contribute to the match in a positive way, some in a neutral way (as described in your #1) and some in a negative way.
So the alternative question:
1)Chess machines are equal to (the world's best human correspondence player)+machines in playing correspondence chess
is really a much more difficult question in my view.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 10413
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
- Location: Tel-Aviv Israel
Re: Future progress of chess software in chess
Not exactly because using ideas of humans together with using alphazero's method is still better than using only alphazero's method.
Stockfish still test patches written by humans in order to get better and I think same for lc0.
-
- Posts: 12566
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: Future progress of chess software in chess
The human wrote the software that allowed the self-learning.
The human directed the program what games to play and how many.
The computer contributed nothing except brute force.
The software not only did not teach itself to play, it does not even know if it won or lost a game.
It is kind of like the Deeper Blue verses Kasparov match.
Deeper Blue has no idea whatsoever that it won the match.
On the other hand, Alpha Zero and LC0 are almost half way to thinking. Much closer than Deeper Blue.
In a sense, they can think, when we tell them what to think.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:48 pm
- Full name: Alayan Feh
Re: Future progress of chess software in chess
AlphaZero's code is written by humans. There was human input everywhere: general design and concept, net format, search algorithm, training game parameters, and so on. Having some part that can improve through automated training is not the same thing at all as humans being useless in the process and contributing nothing at all that would yield more strength than if they didn't intervene.
You could put a million AI engineers on the issue, and they wouldn't solve these problems any time soon. These problems are much harder than what's currently the bleeding edge in AI sophistication.Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:11 pm I think that the problem with #2 and #3 is that nobody is working on it.
-
- Posts: 4889
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:34 am
- Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania
Re: Future progress of chess software in chess
We need to get R2D2 involved.Uri Blass wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:24 am 1)Chess machines are equal to human+machines in playing correspondence chess
2)Chess machine are equal to union of humans+chess machines in developing better chess engines.
3)Chess machines are equal to union of humans+chess machines in teaching humans to play chess better in OTB chess.
I think that we are very close to 1.
When do you expect 2 and 3 to happen so we need no humans to make engines or to teach chess?
-
- Posts: 4190
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:47 am
Re: Future progress of chess software in chess
That's an interesting and completely wrong point of view.Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:11 pmI think that the problem with #2 and #3 is that nobody is working on it.Uri Blass wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:24 am 1)Chess machines are equal to human+machines in playing correspondence chess
2)Chess machine are equal to union of humans+chess machines in developing better chess engines.
3)Chess machines are equal to union of humans+chess machines in teaching humans to play chess better in OTB chess.
I think that we are very close to 1.
When do you expect 2 and 3 to happen so we need no humans to make engines or to teach chess?
As for #1, I do not know if anyone has measured that, but I also guess it depends on the player.
Some players will surely contribute to the match in a positive way, some in a neutral way (as described in your #1) and some in a negative way.
So the alternative question:
1)Chess machines are equal to (the world's best human correspondence player)+machines in playing correspondence chess
is really a much more difficult question in my view.
The reality is that humans are useless in correspondence chess on top level because no amount of human intervention can score a win against SF on decent hardware on ICCF TC. Ergo, human contribution to engine performance is exactly 0 (ZERO).