17 ms·
- A simpler but much faster engine will beat a more complex engine any time because the advantage of another ply easily outweighs the advantage of some clever a
by computerphage 6y ago
- A simpler but much faster engine will beat a more complex engine any time because the advantage of another ply easily outweighs the advantage of some clever algo.
Tell that to AlphaZero
- jacquesm 6y agoThere is a bit of a difference between the likes of AlphaZero and what your average hobbyist programmer is going to cook up. Once your toolbox includes bits like 'custom hardware' the equations change. Also: that was still a wicked fast machine in terms of the number of positions evaluated by any normal standard.
- computerphage 6y agoCertainly AlphaZero was run on very fast hardware and lots of it. Nevertheless, I think it shows that the days of "speed is all that matters" is over. It did substantially fewer evals than stockfish and still crushed it. LC0 is the same way. Neural network chess proved that a higher quality, much more expensive, eval (with a very high quantity baseline, to be sure) is a viable strategy for a chess engine.
- matsemann 6y agoBut alphazero is still using some kind of min-max, right? It's not a net that you input a board into and get a move out, but a net you input a board into and get a score out. So in a stockfish context it's mostly replacing the heuristic/scoring function?
- Veedrac 6y ago> It's not a net that you input a board into and get a move out, but a net you input a board into and get a score out. It's both actually. The former helps guide the search (MCTS, not an Alpha-Beta minmax), and the latter helps truncate the search before an end state.
- Veedrac 6y agoTell that to Stockfish NNUE :P. A simpler neural network running at Stockfish speeds, all on CPU, crushes Lc0 (Lc0 is probably stronger than AlphaZero IMO).
- gliptic 6y agoNNUE is slower than the classic evaluation function though, and much better.