3 ms·

If I leave Stockfish to study for longer then Qe1 comes up in the analysis. Which makes me wonder whether SF gets weaker in some positions the more it's left to

If I leave Stockfish to study for longer then Qe1 comes up in the analysis. Which makes me wonder whether SF gets weaker in some positions the more it's left to think.

zwischenzug 9y ago
Now I'm really intrigued. SF plays really odd moves when left to its own devices for a time. As does this AI. So maybe chess looks really weird with play significantly better than the best humans. It's actually really disturbing.
- thom 9y ago
  I think being able to play tactically perfect chess over 20 or so moves will often look weird to human strategic sensibilities. The computer sees every tiny exception to the patterns and heuristics you've incorporated into your gut feel about positions. In a way these moves are right just because they're right, and that's what's jarring - there's no _principle_ behind them that can be learned and generalised, which is something humans struggle with in all walks of life.
  - zwischenzug 9y ago
    Yeah. I'm stunned.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - thomasahle 9y ago
    Except AlphaZero doesn't evaluate nearly as many moves as Stockfish (80Knps vs 70Mnps), so in a sense, it has exactly generalized a principle (or likely a whole lot of principles) that allows it to estimate positions much better than Stockfish. Of course you are right about perfect play, but the human-like aspect is part of what is exciting about these new Alpha engines.
thom 9y ago
There's definitely nothing fishy going on, although it'd be nice to see a fully loaded Stockfish on its full complement of 512 cores and a proper endgame tablebase to really slog it out with AlphaZero.
- thom 9y ago
  Back to zero at 41 ply... I shan't give a running commentary anymore.
  - zwischenzug 9y ago
    It's fascinating isn't it? I'd love to see this vs Magnus.
    - thom 9y ago
      Pretty sure I input the moves wrong now I'm looking at it. Humans really have no place in chess. :P

If I leave Stockfish to study for longer then Qe1 comes up in the analysis. Which makes me wonder whether SF gets weaker in some positions the more it's left to think.

zwischenzug 9y ago

Now I'm really intrigued. SF plays really odd moves when left to its own devices for a time. As does this AI. So maybe chess looks really weird with play significantly better than the best humans. It's actually really disturbing.

thom 9y ago
I think being able to play tactically perfect chess over 20 or so moves will often look weird to human strategic sensibilities. The computer sees every tiny exception to the patterns and heuristics you've incorporated into your gut feel about positions. In a way these moves are right just because they're right, and that's what's jarring - there's no _principle_ behind them that can be learned and generalised, which is something humans struggle with in all walks of life.
- zwischenzug 9y ago
  Yeah. I'm stunned.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- thomasahle 9y ago
  Except AlphaZero doesn't evaluate nearly as many moves as Stockfish (80Knps vs 70Mnps), so in a sense, it has exactly generalized a principle (or likely a whole lot of principles) that allows it to estimate positions much better than Stockfish. Of course you are right about perfect play, but the human-like aspect is part of what is exciting about these new Alpha engines.

thom 9y ago

There's definitely nothing fishy going on, although it'd be nice to see a fully loaded Stockfish on its full complement of 512 cores and a proper endgame tablebase to really slog it out with AlphaZero.

thom 9y ago
Back to zero at 41 ply... I shan't give a running commentary anymore.
- zwischenzug 9y ago
  It's fascinating isn't it? I'd love to see this vs Magnus.
  - thom 9y ago
    Pretty sure I input the moves wrong now I'm looking at it. Humans really have no place in chess. :P