LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

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

Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw

AlvaroBegue
Posts: 931
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:46 pm
Location: New York
Full name: Álvaro Begué (RuyDos)

Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

Post by AlvaroBegue »

mar wrote:[...] So tactics seems to be the Achilles heel of Leela, at least at this fast TC.
I have evidence that Leela is horrible at tactics at any time control. I posted a reproducible problem on the LCZero forum, but the responses I got are mostly from fan boys that don't want to see the problem.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... q3lg9QV2XQ

Basically you can enter these UCI commands:

Code: Select all

position fen r4rk1/pp1b1ppp/1npb4/q5B1/3P3N/1BP5/P4PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 9 16 moves g5d2 f8e8 d1f3 d7e6 a1d1 e6b3 a2b3 a5a2 c3c4
go infinite
[d]

This is a position where Qxd2 (a2d2) gains a bishop. The queen cannot be recaptured because of a bank-rank mate. This tactic is so simple that is obvious to me (Elo ~1500).

After 3 minutes of thinking time and over 200K playouts, LCZero had considered the correct move 0 times (!!!).

They need a better search algorithm but they are not looking for one yet.
jp
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:54 am

Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

Post by jp »

AlvaroBegue wrote: This is a position where Qxd2 (a2d2) gains a bishop.

After 3 minutes of thinking time and over 200K playouts, LCZero had considered the correct move 0 times (!!!).
How many minutes and how many 100Ks of playouts does LC0 need to consider and play Qxd2?
syzygy
Posts: 5569
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:56 pm

Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

Post by syzygy »

AlvaroBegue wrote:After 3 minutes of thinking time and over 200K playouts, LCZero had considered the correct move 0 times (!!!).

They need a better search algorithm but they are not looking for one yet.
So you really mean:
[d]r3r1k1/pp3ppp/1npb4/8/2PP3N/1P3Q2/q2B1PPP/3RR1K1 b - - 0 20

Without a search, it makes sense not to expect Qxd2 to be a good move.

But what I don't get about the so-called MCTS (but without the MC) of Alpha/LC Zero is that move probabilities (which decide what lines to explore) seem to correlate with moves expected to be good. What you want to explore are moves that potentially cast doubt on your initial evaluation of the position.

I also wonder about the supposed applicability of the multi-armed bandit problem. The multi-armed bandit problem is about maximising expected payout. I see no reason (at all) why that would work particularly well for finding tactical shots.
User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 10948
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

Post by Laskos »

AlvaroBegue wrote:
mar wrote:[...] So tactics seems to be the Achilles heel of Leela, at least at this fast TC.
I have evidence that Leela is horrible at tactics at any time control. I posted a reproducible problem on the LCZero forum, but the responses I got are mostly from fan boys that don't want to see the problem.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... q3lg9QV2XQ

Basically you can enter these UCI commands:

Code: Select all

position fen r4rk1/pp1b1ppp/1npb4/q5B1/3P3N/1BP5/P4PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 9 16 moves g5d2 f8e8 d1f3 d7e6 a1d1 e6b3 a2b3 a5a2 c3c4
go infinite
[d]

This is a position where Qxd2 (a2d2) gains a bishop. The queen cannot be recaptured because of a bank-rank mate. This tactic is so simple that is obvious to me (Elo ~1500).

After 3 minutes of thinking time and over 200K playouts, LCZero had considered the correct move 0 times (!!!).

They need a better search algorithm but they are not looking for one yet.
That's very interesting. The position is even easier than usual WAC position, which are easy for most reasonable AB engines. I tested WAC (300 easy tactical shots):

1s/position
Fruit 2.1 (2700 CCRL)
294/300

1s/position
Predateur 2.2.1 (1800 CCRL)
272/300

6s/position (to compensate for absence of GPU, 4 CPU threads)
LC0 ID246
119/300

What Elo would ID246 be on that easy super-tactical suite?

This is such a weakness, that one can make an exploit, say build an AB engine specifically designed to set-up easy tactical traps. Maybe A0 had a similar problem, but at higher level, where such positions occur rarely in usual games with a usual engine like SF.
Last edited by Laskos on Sat May 05, 2018 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joost Buijs
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:47 am
Location: Almere, The Netherlands

Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

Post by Joost Buijs »

AlvaroBegue wrote:
mar wrote:[...] So tactics seems to be the Achilles heel of Leela, at least at this fast TC.
I have evidence that Leela is horrible at tactics at any time control. I posted a reproducible problem on the LCZero forum, but the responses I got are mostly from fan boys that don't want to see the problem.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... q3lg9QV2XQ

Basically you can enter these UCI commands:

Code: Select all

position fen r4rk1/pp1b1ppp/1npb4/q5B1/3P3N/1BP5/P4PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 9 16 moves g5d2 f8e8 d1f3 d7e6 a1d1 e6b3 a2b3 a5a2 c3c4
go infinite
[d]

This is a position where Qxd2 (a2d2) gains a bishop. The queen cannot be recaptured because of a bank-rank mate. This tactic is so simple that is obvious to me (Elo ~1500).

After 3 minutes of thinking time and over 200K playouts, LCZero had considered the correct move 0 times (!!!).

They need a better search algorithm but they are not looking for one yet.
Indeed, this is a simple 4 ply tactic, I would expect that the MCTS picks this up, maybe the network thinks Qxd2 is so bad that it never considers this move in the playouts. I have no clue about how the algorithm of LCZero exactly works, I never looked at the code, but I have the feeling that there are many things that need improvement before you can even start thinking about reaching the level of Stockfish.
Joost Buijs
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:47 am
Location: Almere, The Netherlands

Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

Post by Joost Buijs »

Laskos wrote:
AlvaroBegue wrote:
mar wrote:[...] So tactics seems to be the Achilles heel of Leela, at least at this fast TC.
I have evidence that Leela is horrible at tactics at any time control. I posted a reproducible problem on the LCZero forum, but the responses I got are mostly from fan boys that don't want to see the problem.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... q3lg9QV2XQ

Basically you can enter these UCI commands:

Code: Select all

position fen r4rk1/pp1b1ppp/1npb4/q5B1/3P3N/1BP5/P4PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 9 16 moves g5d2 f8e8 d1f3 d7e6 a1d1 e6b3 a2b3 a5a2 c3c4
go infinite
[d]

This is a position where Qxd2 (a2d2) gains a bishop. The queen cannot be recaptured because of a bank-rank mate. This tactic is so simple that is obvious to me (Elo ~1500).

After 3 minutes of thinking time and over 200K playouts, LCZero had considered the correct move 0 times (!!!).

They need a better search algorithm but they are not looking for one yet.
That's very interesting. The position is even easier than usual WAC position, which are easy for most reasonable AB engines. I tested WAC (300 easy tactical shots):

1s/position
Fruit 2.1 (2700 CCRL)
294/300

1s/position
Predateur 2.2.1 (1800 CCRL)
272/300

6s/position (to compensate for absence of GPU, 4 CPU threads)
LC0 ID246
119/300

What Elo would ID246 be on that easy super-tactical suite?

This is such a weakness, that one can make an exploit, say build an AB engine specifically designed to set-up easy tactical traps. Maybe A0 had a similar problem, but at higher level, where such positions occur rarely in usual games with a usual engine like SF.
119/300 on WAC is really bad, my engine (certainly not a top engine) does 298/300 with just 1 second per move on a single core.
User avatar
AdminX
Posts: 6350
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: Acworth, GA

Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

Post by AdminX »

Joost Buijs wrote:
AlvaroBegue wrote:
mar wrote:[...] So tactics seems to be the Achilles heel of Leela, at least at this fast TC.
I have evidence that Leela is horrible at tactics at any time control. I posted a reproducible problem on the LCZero forum, but the responses I got are mostly from fan boys that don't want to see the problem.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... q3lg9QV2XQ

Basically you can enter these UCI commands:

Code: Select all

position fen r4rk1/pp1b1ppp/1npb4/q5B1/3P3N/1BP5/P4PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 9 16 moves g5d2 f8e8 d1f3 d7e6 a1d1 e6b3 a2b3 a5a2 c3c4
go infinite
[d]

This is a position where Qxd2 (a2d2) gains a bishop. The queen cannot be recaptured because of a bank-rank mate. This tactic is so simple that is obvious to me (Elo ~1500).

After 3 minutes of thinking time and over 200K playouts, LCZero had considered the correct move 0 times (!!!).

They need a better search algorithm but they are not looking for one yet.
Indeed, this is a simple 4 ply tactic, I would expect that the MCTS picks this up, maybe the network thinks Qxd2 is so bad that it never considers this move in the playouts. I have no clue about how the algorithm of LCZero exactly works, I never looked at the code, but I have the feeling that there are many things that need improvement before you can even start thinking about reaching the level of Stockfish.
Well isn't the theory that she's supposed to teach herself. Otherwise what is the purpose of self play and reinforcement learning? The same might even be said of giving it Syzygy support.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
syzygy
Posts: 5569
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:56 pm

Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

Post by syzygy »

AdminX wrote:Well isn't the theory that she's supposed to teach herself. Otherwise what is the purpose of self play and reinforcement learning.
But there will necessarily be a limit on the tactics that its NN can resolve itself. If the NN incorrectly classifies a tactical move as bad with the result that the search never even looks at it, there is a problem.
User avatar
AdminX
Posts: 6350
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: Acworth, GA

Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

Post by AdminX »

syzygy wrote:
AdminX wrote:Well isn't the theory that she's supposed to teach herself. Otherwise what is the purpose of self play and reinforcement learning.
But there will necessarily be a limit on the tactics that its NN can resolve itself. If the NN incorrectly classifies a tactical move as bad with the result that the search never even looks at it, there is a problem.
Sounds like she will need an additional tactical module added to her system.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
peter
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:38 am
Full name: Peter Martan

Re: LCZero: Progress and Scaling. Relation to CCRL Elo

Post by peter »

Hi Kai!
Laskos wrote:What Elo would ID246 be on that easy super-tactical suite?

This is such a weakness, that one can make an exploit, say build an AB engine specifically designed to set-up easy tactical traps. Maybe A0 had a similar problem, but at higher level, where such positions occur rarely in usual games with a usual engine like SF.
I wrote here
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 43&t=66945
about network 240 and don't want to repeat it with 246 already again.

And I don't like Elo- ratings out of single test suites, there are too many different Elo- ratings round here in computerchess since long time anyhow.

Yet I'm really happy that you start seeing some of my points I write about since A0 appeared then.
:)
It might be simply a bigger difference between Celo (Computer- Elo) in bookless (or as well as bookless as for 0815 test-books or opening testsets) eng-eng-matches and testing with positions further off the initial position of chess, than between AB- engines only.

No wonder neither, AB- engines are (at least at the top of the rating- lists) much more similiar to each other than they might be compared to AI- engines like A0 or LC0 with the puristic Zero- concept of selflearning.
Last edited by peter on Sat May 05, 2018 4:48 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Peter.