8 ms·

Is human&computer better than computer only?

by air7 6y ago

pps43 6y ago
Not really. It was tried and it turns out that the best strategy for the human is to just do what the computer suggests.
- Strilanc 6y ago
  Could you provide a source for this?
  - tuxiano 6y ago
    I suppose he can’t because it isn’t true at all. The best correspondence players usually improve significantly over the computer suggestions. Source: I’m a corrspondence chess international master
    - vecter 6y ago
      > The best correspondence players usually improve significantly over the computer suggestions. I might be misunderstanding your claim, but how can humans playing correspondence chess beat Stockfish or Lc0?
      - tuxiano 6y ago
        In official correspondence games the computer assistance is allowed so most (if not all) of the players usually start their analysis with the computer suggestions (Stockfish, Lc0 or others). Some players limit themselves to this and play the engine's move, others try to improve with their own contribution. If no human contribution was possible, correspondence chess would become an hardware fight while results show that the best players can defeat "naive" opponents that rely on computer suggestions. In this sense, every correspondence chess win is a win over the opponent's hardware and engine.
        vecter 6y ago
        Isn't it possible that you're not improving upon the engine's suggestions, but instead, your opponent is choosing suboptimal non-engine lines, and your engine is beating their weakened engine?
        tuxiano 6y ago
        Occasionally it is possible. After seven years and more than one hundred games played I can tell you that I have been surprised by my opponent's reply not more than an handful of times. For "surprised" I mean he didn't play the top choice of the engine. In fact most of the times the best move in a given position is easily agreed on by any reasonable engine on any decent hardware. In few critical moments in the game, the best move is not clear and there are two or three or more playable alternatives that take into very different positions. In these cases the computer, after a long thought (one or more hours) usually converges to one suggestion and sticks to it even if given more time (a sort of "horizon effect"). These are the moments where a human, after a long thought, can overcome the computer suggestion and favor the 2nd or 3rd choice of the engine. So in brief no, I can't recall a game where I've been gifted the win by my opponent "weakened" move while most of the time I have confronted with the "engine's approved" suggestion and had to build my win by refuting it.
        vecter 6y ago
        I assume that when you come across one of these novel moves, plug it into the computer, and give it time to search, it ultimately decides that it's superior? Relatedly, can you give some examples of novel non-engine lines that turned out to be better than engine lines?
        tuxiano 6y ago
        Sometimes if you play a move and the first plies (i.e. half moves) of the main variation the computer starts "understanding" and its score changes accordingly. Those are the cases where more hardware power could be useful and make the engine realize the change from the starting position. More often, the "non-engine" move relies on some blindness of the engine, so the computer starts understanding its strength only when it's too late. In these cases is unlikely that more power could bring benefits. Typical cases are - fortresses [0]. One side has more material but the position can't be won by the superior side. As the chess rules declare the draw only after 50 moves without captures or pawn pushes, current engines can't look this far away and continue manouvering without realizing the blocked nature of the position. Some engines have been programmed to solve this problem but their overall strength decreases significantly. - Threefold repetitions [1]. The engine believes the position is equal and move the pieces in - let me say - pseudorandom way. Only at some point it realizes the repetition can be avoided favourably by one side. Also this topic is frequently discussed in the programming forums but no clearcut solution has still emerged. If you are looking for positions where human play is still better than engine's, the opening phase is the most fruitful. Most theoretical lines were born by human creativity and I doubt a chess engine will ever be able to navigate the intricacies of the Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Sicilian Najdorf [2] or the Marshall Attack of the Ruy Lopez [3]. Neural networks engines are strategically stronger than classical AB programs in the opening phase but they suffers from occasional tactical blindness. Engine-engine competitions often use opening books to force the engines to play a prearranged variation to increase the variabililty and reduce the draw percentage. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(chess) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(chess) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_Pawn_Variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_Pawn_Variation [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez#Marshall_Attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez#Marshall_Attack
    - roenxi 6y ago
      I'm interested because the experience in Go is humans simply can't keep up. What is the evidence that it isn't a hardware or software differential between the players? I can't think of an easy way to ensure that both players started with computer-suggested moves of the same quality.
      - tuxiano 6y ago
        There are a lot of engines with rating on the chart way higher than the best humans, so every suggestion on their part should be in theory enough to overcome any human opponent. In practice most (if not all) of the players rely on Stockfish and Lc0 (both open source). During a game, most of the time the "best" move is easily agreed on by every reasonable engine on any decent hardware. Only in few cases during a game, the position offers two or three or more playable choices. In these cases a stronger hardware or a longer thought rarely makes the computer change his idea. It's a sort of horizon effect where more power doesn't translate into a really better analysis. For example in a given position you could have 3 moves M1 - a calm continuation with a good advantage M2 - an exchange sacrifice (a rook for a bishop or a knight) for an attack M3 - a massive exchange of pieces entering into a favorable endgame. If the three choices are so different, the computer usually can't dwell enough to settle on a clear best move. Instead the human can evaluate the choices until one of them shows up as clearly best (for example the endgame can be forcefully won). In these cases the computer suggestion becomes almost irrelevant and only a naive player would make the choice on some minimal score difference (that can unpredictably vary on hardware, software version or duration of analysis). So the quality of the starting suggestion is somehow irrelevant if you plan to make a thoughtful choice.
luisvictoria 6y ago
Not really, humans barely provide insight (if anything), which chess engines don’t already consider. Deep Blue could evaluate 200 million different moves... per second. And that’s from 1997. The few and rare times an engine gets funky is usually in end-game positions where the engine can’t seem to find a sacrifice to win the game and will output a current position as drawn. These cases are few and I very much doubt that a human would be able to find these moves in an actual match. Now if you’re talking about the way the chess engine learns, it can learn in two different ways: without human help (learning completely on its own giving it nothing but the rules which is how AlphaGo works), or with human aid (through chess theory accumulated over centuries of human matches that these engines have built in as part of their evaluations). Things get very interesting. I’d recommend you to look up a few games between AlphaGo and Stockfish, which embody these two different philosophies and battle it to the teeth and bones. The matches are brilliant. I would say though that it seems like AlphaGo (learning the game entirely through scratch without human help) has seemed to triumph more times than Stockfish and with the nature of these systems, I’d suspect it to continue that trend.
- marksweston 6y ago
  I'm not sure it's right to characterise Deep Blue or Stockfish as repositories of human chess theory. Fundamentally they were all based on a relatively simplistic function for calculating the value of a board position combined with the ability to evaluate more board positions further into the future than any human possibly could (plus a database of opening moves). That approach seems thoroughly non-human, and represents a victory of tactical accuracy over chess theory or strategy. However I agree that the games between AlphaGo and Stockfish are really interesting. It strikes me that the AlphaGo version of chess looks a lot more human; it seems to place value on strategic ideas (activity, tempo, freedom of movement) that any human player would recognise.
  - luisvictoria 6y ago
    I think you're right, I meant to say that chess engines usually have book openings built into them which derive off of human chess theory but you're absolutely right in that they don't play in a human form. It's kind of crazy how AlphaZero has managed the success it has. Stockfish calculates roughly 60 million moves per second and AlphaZero calculates at only 60 thousand per second. Three orders of magnitude less yet its brilliance is mesmerizing, tearing Stockfish apart in certain matches.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sp332 6y ago
I'm not sure about very recent chess engines, but for a long time, it was better. The human suggests several moves that would advance their strategy, and the computer dedicates its search time to evaluating the strength of those potential moves, which cuts down the search space considerably. It's called "advanced chess" or "centaur chess". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess
JamesBarney 6y ago
No. Computers are now as much better than Magnus Carlsen as he is better than a moderate amateur. If even the best player overrides a move he's much more likely to be reducing the strength of the move than increasing it.
- tuxiano 6y ago
  The rating you are referring to are typically based on tournament or rapid games, where the limited time induces the human players to mistakes that the computer capitalizes on. Given enough time or with a “blunder check” option, the best human players are still strategically stronger. In correspondence chess, where the is much more time at disposal, the human players can still improve the computer suggestions. Source: I’m a correspondence international chess master
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    Yeah I was thinking about classic or standard time controls. The last big cyborg tournament a few years ago I remember a computer coming in 1st and 2nd. I wasn't thinking about correspondence but what was the latest large cyborg correspondence tournament?
    - tuxiano 6y ago
      I don't know the last one but I recall the matches of Hydra chess machine [0] in the early 2000s against GM Adams in tournament condition (5½ to ½ for the machine) and against GM Nickel in correspondence condition (2 to 0 for the human). Both Grandmaster were top players in their relative field so it showed very clearly how the time limitation impacted the competitive results. Nobody in the chess elite would claim that Hydra understood chess better than GM Adams but still he lost resoundigly due to the inevitable mistakes caused by the relatively fast time control. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(chess) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(chess)
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        But wasn't Hydra 2005 ~2800 ELO where as the current best chess engines like Leela Chess Zero or Stockfish are ~4000 ELO? Just realized that correspondence chess is cyborg chess, I didn't know computers were legal in correspondence chess, but it makes sense now. Reading about it, it sounds like it's less about knowing chess, and more about understanding the applications you're using.

Is human&computer better than computer only?

by air7 6y ago

Is human&computer better than computer only?

Not really. It was tried and it turns out that the best strategy for the human is to just do what the computer suggests.

Strilanc 6y ago
Could you provide a source for this?
- tuxiano 6y ago
  I suppose he can’t because it isn’t true at all. The best correspondence players usually improve significantly over the computer suggestions. Source: I’m a corrspondence chess international master
  - vecter 6y ago
    > The best correspondence players usually improve significantly over the computer suggestions. I might be misunderstanding your claim, but how can humans playing correspondence chess beat Stockfish or Lc0?
    - tuxiano 6y ago
      In official correspondence games the computer assistance is allowed so most (if not all) of the players usually start their analysis with the computer suggestions (Stockfish, Lc0 or others). Some players limit themselves to this and play the engine's move, others try to improve with their own contribution. If no human contribution was possible, correspondence chess would become an hardware fight while results show that the best players can defeat "naive" opponents that rely on computer suggestions. In this sense, every correspondence chess win is a win over the opponent's hardware and engine.
      - vecter 6y ago
        Isn't it possible that you're not improving upon the engine's suggestions, but instead, your opponent is choosing suboptimal non-engine lines, and your engine is beating their weakened engine?
        tuxiano 6y ago
        Occasionally it is possible. After seven years and more than one hundred games played I can tell you that I have been surprised by my opponent's reply not more than an handful of times. For "surprised" I mean he didn't play the top choice of the engine. In fact most of the times the best move in a given position is easily agreed on by any reasonable engine on any decent hardware. In few critical moments in the game, the best move is not clear and there are two or three or more playable alternatives that take into very different positions. In these cases the computer, after a long thought (one or more hours) usually converges to one suggestion and sticks to it even if given more time (a sort of "horizon effect"). These are the moments where a human, after a long thought, can overcome the computer suggestion and favor the 2nd or 3rd choice of the engine. So in brief no, I can't recall a game where I've been gifted the win by my opponent "weakened" move while most of the time I have confronted with the "engine's approved" suggestion and had to build my win by refuting it.
        vecter 6y ago
        I assume that when you come across one of these novel moves, plug it into the computer, and give it time to search, it ultimately decides that it's superior? Relatedly, can you give some examples of novel non-engine lines that turned out to be better than engine lines?
        tuxiano 6y ago
        Sometimes if you play a move and the first plies (i.e. half moves) of the main variation the computer starts "understanding" and its score changes accordingly. Those are the cases where more hardware power could be useful and make the engine realize the change from the starting position. More often, the "non-engine" move relies on some blindness of the engine, so the computer starts understanding its strength only when it's too late. In these cases is unlikely that more power could bring benefits. Typical cases are - fortresses [0]. One side has more material but the position can't be won by the superior side. As the chess rules declare the draw only after 50 moves without captures or pawn pushes, current engines can't look this far away and continue manouvering without realizing the blocked nature of the position. Some engines have been programmed to solve this problem but their overall strength decreases significantly. - Threefold repetitions [1]. The engine believes the position is equal and move the pieces in - let me say - pseudorandom way. Only at some point it realizes the repetition can be avoided favourably by one side. Also this topic is frequently discussed in the programming forums but no clearcut solution has still emerged. If you are looking for positions where human play is still better than engine's, the opening phase is the most fruitful. Most theoretical lines were born by human creativity and I doubt a chess engine will ever be able to navigate the intricacies of the Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Sicilian Najdorf [2] or the Marshall Attack of the Ruy Lopez [3]. Neural networks engines are strategically stronger than classical AB programs in the opening phase but they suffers from occasional tactical blindness. Engine-engine competitions often use opening books to force the engines to play a prearranged variation to increase the variabililty and reduce the draw percentage. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(chess) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(chess) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_Pawn_Variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_Pawn_Variation [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez#Marshall_Attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez#Marshall_Attack
  - roenxi 6y ago
    I'm interested because the experience in Go is humans simply can't keep up. What is the evidence that it isn't a hardware or software differential between the players? I can't think of an easy way to ensure that both players started with computer-suggested moves of the same quality.
    - tuxiano 6y ago
      There are a lot of engines with rating on the chart way higher than the best humans, so every suggestion on their part should be in theory enough to overcome any human opponent. In practice most (if not all) of the players rely on Stockfish and Lc0 (both open source). During a game, most of the time the "best" move is easily agreed on by every reasonable engine on any decent hardware. Only in few cases during a game, the position offers two or three or more playable choices. In these cases a stronger hardware or a longer thought rarely makes the computer change his idea. It's a sort of horizon effect where more power doesn't translate into a really better analysis. For example in a given position you could have 3 moves M1 - a calm continuation with a good advantage M2 - an exchange sacrifice (a rook for a bishop or a knight) for an attack M3 - a massive exchange of pieces entering into a favorable endgame. If the three choices are so different, the computer usually can't dwell enough to settle on a clear best move. Instead the human can evaluate the choices until one of them shows up as clearly best (for example the endgame can be forcefully won). In these cases the computer suggestion becomes almost irrelevant and only a naive player would make the choice on some minimal score difference (that can unpredictably vary on hardware, software version or duration of analysis). So the quality of the starting suggestion is somehow irrelevant if you plan to make a thoughtful choice.

luisvictoria 6y ago

Not really, humans barely provide insight (if anything), which chess engines don’t already consider. Deep Blue could evaluate 200 million different moves... per second. And that’s from 1997. The few and rare times an engine gets funky is usually in end-game positions where the engine can’t seem to find a sacrifice to win the game and will output a current position as drawn. These cases are few and I very much doubt that a human would be able to find these moves in an actual match. Now if you’re talking about the way the chess engine learns, it can learn in two different ways: without human help (learning completely on its own giving it nothing but the rules which is how AlphaGo works), or with human aid (through chess theory accumulated over centuries of human matches that these engines have built in as part of their evaluations). Things get very interesting. I’d recommend you to look up a few games between AlphaGo and Stockfish, which embody these two different philosophies and battle it to the teeth and bones. The matches are brilliant. I would say though that it seems like AlphaGo (learning the game entirely through scratch without human help) has seemed to triumph more times than Stockfish and with the nature of these systems, I’d suspect it to continue that trend.

marksweston 6y ago
I'm not sure it's right to characterise Deep Blue or Stockfish as repositories of human chess theory. Fundamentally they were all based on a relatively simplistic function for calculating the value of a board position combined with the ability to evaluate more board positions further into the future than any human possibly could (plus a database of opening moves). That approach seems thoroughly non-human, and represents a victory of tactical accuracy over chess theory or strategy. However I agree that the games between AlphaGo and Stockfish are really interesting. It strikes me that the AlphaGo version of chess looks a lot more human; it seems to place value on strategic ideas (activity, tempo, freedom of movement) that any human player would recognise.
- luisvictoria 6y ago
  I think you're right, I meant to say that chess engines usually have book openings built into them which derive off of human chess theory but you're absolutely right in that they don't play in a human form. It's kind of crazy how AlphaZero has managed the success it has. Stockfish calculates roughly 60 million moves per second and AlphaZero calculates at only 60 thousand per second. Three orders of magnitude less yet its brilliance is mesmerizing, tearing Stockfish apart in certain matches.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sp332 6y ago

I'm not sure about very recent chess engines, but for a long time, it was better. The human suggests several moves that would advance their strategy, and the computer dedicates its search time to evaluating the strength of those potential moves, which cuts down the search space considerably. It's called "advanced chess" or "centaur chess". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess

JamesBarney 6y ago

No. Computers are now as much better than Magnus Carlsen as he is better than a moderate amateur. If even the best player overrides a move he's much more likely to be reducing the strength of the move than increasing it.

tuxiano 6y ago
The rating you are referring to are typically based on tournament or rapid games, where the limited time induces the human players to mistakes that the computer capitalizes on. Given enough time or with a “blunder check” option, the best human players are still strategically stronger. In correspondence chess, where the is much more time at disposal, the human players can still improve the computer suggestions. Source: I’m a correspondence international chess master
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  Yeah I was thinking about classic or standard time controls. The last big cyborg tournament a few years ago I remember a computer coming in 1st and 2nd. I wasn't thinking about correspondence but what was the latest large cyborg correspondence tournament?
  - tuxiano 6y ago
    I don't know the last one but I recall the matches of Hydra chess machine [0] in the early 2000s against GM Adams in tournament condition (5½ to ½ for the machine) and against GM Nickel in correspondence condition (2 to 0 for the human). Both Grandmaster were top players in their relative field so it showed very clearly how the time limitation impacted the competitive results. Nobody in the chess elite would claim that Hydra understood chess better than GM Adams but still he lost resoundigly due to the inevitable mistakes caused by the relatively fast time control. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(chess) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(chess)
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      But wasn't Hydra 2005 ~2800 ELO where as the current best chess engines like Leela Chess Zero or Stockfish are ~4000 ELO? Just realized that correspondence chess is cyborg chess, I didn't know computers were legal in correspondence chess, but it makes sense now. Reading about it, it sounds like it's less about knowing chess, and more about understanding the applications you're using.