2 ms·

Maybe. I think if you had asked me to predict the rating I would have guessed below 1100 though. Because of only predicting moves in isolation. I would expect t

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  > Because of only predicting moves in isolation. This actually may be the reason of higher ranking. What are the odds that a low ranked player will blunder a piece in a particular position? Quite low. But what are the odds that a low ranked player will blunder a piece in a game? They are quite high. So while this engine may predict most likely move, it can’t fake a likely game because it is too consistent. I think GANs can be helpful to do something like this. One NN tries to make a man-like move and another one tries to guess whether the move was made by a human or the engine given the history of moves in a game.
  • im3w1l 6y ago
    I suppose the game at 1100 is really bad, such that it's mainly about avoiding obvious blunders, and not about having a sound long term strategy.
• reidmcy 6y ago
  That's what a few machine learning people I talked too thought would happen. There are lots of examples (self driving cars being the big one) in machine learning where training on individual examples isn't enough. We were actually hoping for our models to be as strong as the humans they're trained on so we are underperforming our target in that way. I'm the main developer for Maia chess
  • LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    Have you thought about trying a GAN or an actor-critic approach? Did you find it infeasible?