6 ms·
Chess went through a similar transition in the last 10-20 years when computers became much stronger than the best human. Some of her points are valid, some of t
by hcnews 6y ago
Chess went through a similar transition in the last 10-20 years when computers became much stronger than the best human. Some of her points are valid, some of them are temporary.
1. Professional gameplay changes a lot.
There are no more secret openings/midgames/endgames, you will hardly be able to cheese a top pro (not that it was easy before).
Professional gameplay requires memorizing tons of lines and then adding on to add it. There are many chess openings which require memorization till the end result (50 moves) or you risk losing the game. We are going to see a similar trend of memorization in Go.
2. Online casual gameplay changes a lot.
There are lot of cheaters in online forums. Cheat detection has to be built in to the sites or you risk being taken over by cheaters.
Easy availability to best moves allows the dedicated player to learn a lot faster than previously where there was a discoverability issue. We see this in the professional chess world where its not uncommon to see 14-16 yr old GMs nowadays.
3. Professional teaching still survives.
Engine can tell you the best move but it doesn't give you a teaching path from beginner to amateur professional to grand master. I am not a master but based on anecdotal evidence people still employ coaches but for much more focussed tasks and more specialized skills (e.g. openings, midgames, endgames).
- benchaney 6y agoI disagree about memorization. That may be true for chess, but the go board is too large and the game to long for that to be viable. In the opening, bots will generally recommend several places per move that lose 0 or -0.1 points compared to its preferred move. You would have to memorize thousands of opening just to have a chance of still being in book for the entire opening, and even then your opponent can take your out of your preparations at a cost of less than 1 point.
- __s 6y agoTo add to your point, Fischer was complaining about chess openings going stale 20 years before computers came on the scene
- jmcgough 6y agoAfter he fell out of the pro scene he became way more interested in chess variants than vanilla chess (more specifically his Fischer Random Chess). I can't imagine being at the level he was at, where you needed to hundreds or thousands of hours memorizing and practicing openings... so not surprised he appreciated a game that valued more on-the-fly decision making than heavy preparation.
- SenoraRaton 6y agoYou don't actually spend 100,000s of hours memorizing openings. You study the basic opening principles and key variants, but for the most part it comes very naturally. You play 100,000s of hours of chess, and EVERY chess game has an opening.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 6y agoI can't find many good resources, but at least the joseki explorer on OGS has been listing some pretty heavy favoring for particular moves on a given joseki. Couldn't we see specific joseki lines get more entrenched and go further?
- benchaney 6y agoAI have certainly been changing which joseki are popular and which aren't, but this isn't the same as increasing the amount of memorization in the game since joseki aren't new. The AI favored lines are likely to get heavily entrenched. I wouldn't expect them to go further because they generally end when becomes better to play elsewhere. There are a few fighting joseki where this isn't the case, but AI doesn't seem to like them much, although there are a few exceptions.
- clankyclanker 6y ago> There are a few fighting joseki where this isn't the case, but AI doesn't seem to like them much Do we know if those moves are actually weaker overall, or is there some other sort of selection bias at play?
- roenxi 6y agoI think some of the AI are trained by forcing them to play random moves every so often. That might bias them towards larger, more flexible openings where there are large regions of the board that make sense to play in rather than specific move sequences. But if I were guessing, the AI probably doesn't like fighting joseki because it knows how the fight will end. AIs are much, much better than humans at working out who won a fight.
- soVeryTired 6y agoGo already required memorizing 'joseki' or standard patterns that crop up again and again (particularly in the opening). The usual mantra is 'don't learn joseki, learn _from_ joseki'. But the truth is - like openings in chess - if you don't know them and you play someone who does, you're often at a disadvantage.
- nojs 6y ago> Online casual gameplay changes a lot Short time controls and live streaming of blitz games by GMs is fun. Maybe this is less “pure” but it’s great entertainment, and doesn’t seem like engine use is a huge problem when the stakes are low (it’s usually pretty obvious to a GM when they start losing to weird moves, they call it out and move on).
- BurningFrog 6y agoThe chess cheaters only affect the elite. As a mid level chump at chess.com, any cheater will be ranked way over me.
- newen 6y agoDepends. It’s probably easier to get away with it longer at lower levels and some people want to experience that sweet sweet win at whatever level they are in.
- BurningFrog 6y agoMy point is that if they keep getting those sweet wins, they'll soon have a much higher rating than me. It's of course possible that some people only cheats occasionally, for whatever reason. People are weird and do weird things...
- shultays 6y agoHow does cheat detection works? Does it compare tour moves to common ais?
- aberseti 6y agoThey have a huge database of most common moves + chess engine moves they cross reference to, then using math they see if your time to move + accuracy of moves is close to a chess engine, especially if it's not the opening (since being accurate for the first 4-12 moves is trivial). If you play too fast and with too much accuracy relative to your ELO you get banned pretty quick.
- sweezyjeezy 6y agore: move speed - it's also often that low rated players using engines take too long on trivial moves - many chess engines will take a set amount of time to look for the best move, even if there's something completely obvious on the board like capturing a queen that you've spent the last three moves trapping.
- noxvilleza 6y agoIt's "Elo", not "ELO". Afaik they analyze the deviation (in centipawns) of each played move to the optimal move calculated by popular chess engines (like Stockfish, Houdini, Komodo, etc); and aggregate in a sort of weighted Brier score. If a player is constantly making optimal moves, they're likely cheating (they can analyze top level professional matches for upper skill benchmarks). There is some lower weighting for opening moves (which is where the database part comes in just knowing when a game moves from theoretical 'book' openings into original territory). Each of the sites have different implementations of this: chess24 for example even partially gives your accuracy of book moves and then differentiates between Blunder / Mistake / Good / Excellent / Best move based on the deviation from optimal; but it doesn't show you how it's aggregated into a single value.
- i-am-curious 6y agoWhat's the incentive to master a game already beaten by AI?
- galimaufry 6y agoPeople do foot races even though gazelle is invented.
- paxys 6y agoGo ask Magnus Carlsen I guess
- braythwayt 6y agoWhat is my motivation to practice my bass? If I do it to make a living, that’s one thing. If I do it to be “the best,” that’s another thing. If I do it for the pleasure of learning to do a thing, that’s a third thing. It’s the same with games, but the emphasis on winning skews the culture towards wanting to be “the best.” But for those following the third path, AI beating humans changes nothing for them, just as synth bass and sequencing changes nothing for me.
- SamBam 6y agoWhat is the incentive to run faster, when a car can drive faster, or build strength when a tractor can lift more? What is the incentive to do any artistic endeavor, if you are not planning on being one of the world's best pianists, or painters, or singers, or furniture-makers? Go was probably already solved by some distant species on a planet far away. Did that make it any less enjoyable for us to play? What's the difference?
- devin 6y agoOther replies covered the main points, but I don't really see why AI has anything to do with the pursuit of mastery. If suddenly computers can create perfect, beautiful music, I will still play an instrument. I didn't downvote you because I guess it's a fair question to ask, but it is a rather naive one. Why learn arithmetic if a computer can do it?