10 ms·

When watching the WC games, I've seen it happen that a move wasn't considered as a top move by the engine, but once played the engine realizes it's actually cru

When watching the WC games, I've seen it happen that a move wasn't considered as a top move by the engine, but once played the engine realizes it's actually crushing. Something about the heuristics used to prune the vast search space can make it miss sacrifices or seemingly sub-optimal moves that temporarily weakens the perceived position but has a huge payoff in the end. But humans find them. Of course, given enough time and depth the engine will eventually circle back and try the move. But it has no intuition. Also, an engine without an endgame tablebase can be pretty stupid. There are certain rules one can deduct when there are few pieces left, but a min/max engine will search forever, not knowing the patterns.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> I've seen it happen that a move wasn't considered as a top move by the engine, but once played the engine realizes it's actually crushing. Something about the heuristics used to prune the vast search space can make it miss sacrifices or seemingly sub-optimal moves that temporarily weakens the perceived position but has a huge payoff in the end. But humans find them. Just to observe, humans display exactly the same phenomenon of ignoring a move before it's made while still being able to realize, after it's made, that it was very strong and ignoring it was a mistake.
- curiousllama 5y ago
  The word I would use for a move like that is “counterintuitive” Which... suggests the computer displays intuition
  - taneq 5y ago
    Exactly. In fact you could argue that intuition, ‘arriving at a conclusion without a conscious understanding of your reasoning’, is the only thing a neural net displays.
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    Well played. OP's choice of words is inexact. The engine has a different intuition, not none. Humans will usually explore trades and overlook seemingly "slow" moves that the computer usually finds. What the engine does lacks is what chess players call "theory," hence the need for endgame DBs. Humans can also beat engines with "logic," like the Naka match. That one was extraordinary. A simpler & more typical example is isolating a pawn so that it can't ever be defended, but also can't be attacked immediately. For a human, it's easy to understand this is long term vulnerability even if the pawn survives for 20+ more moves. Anti-computer strategies, ironically, force you to "play the player, not the board."
  - Longwelwind 5y ago
    Isn't an heuristic the exact definition of an intuition (i.e. a way to evaluate a complex situation using simpler rules that woks most of the times)?
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      Intuitions often do not deliver the correct response; many puzzles and paradoxes (not to mention a few philosophical arguments) hang on misleading intuitions. Furthermore, heuristics are rules, while intuitions are not. Sometimes people use their intuition to go against what a heuristic suggests!
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Yes, and they display the converse. It's the existence of the converse behaviour which is distinguishing. A machine which is just pruning a search space with a low-quality valuation strategy isn't doing anything very impressive; only very fast. A human with a very high quality valuation technique, but a slow search pace, is relevantly impressive.
bottled_poe 5y ago
No intuition? What is intuition other than a position assessment heuristic? Game-tree AI must limit the game tree search at some depth. In order to exploit this, the opponent would need to identify the position strength at a deeper level than the AI’s search depth, which seems unlikely.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  A game like 'go' is a better example of this type of endless tree depth where human intuition can out perform game tree searches.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    I'm fine with labelling it "intuition" if you are able to avoid searching the game tree to sift potentially good moves and positions from bad, but in this case machines have intuition too now. Which is why AlphaZero plays Go with similar performance to the best human players.
    - taneq 5y ago
      Is it really similar performance? Last I heard it was crushing all competition, human or otherwise?
      - eru 5y ago
        It has crushed all human competition. They haven't made AlphaGo play against other computers (apart from versions of itself). And it's neither publicly available nor playing humans anymore. However, a few other engines have re-implemented ideas from AlphaGo. Leela Zero is one of them.
  - pmontra 5y ago
    Alpha Zero and the other open source deep learning Go engines seems to be able to give 2 or 3 stones handicap to the top human players. In my experience, between two strong players: 2 stones means "I can lose some even games against you but not often" 3 stones means "I won't lose a single even game unless I'm drunk" 4 stones means "You really didn't understand this game yet"
FartyMcFarter 5y ago
> Also, an engine without an endgame tablebase can be pretty stupid. What is an example of a realistic endgame (not something with 9 white pawns, 5 black knights and such) that chess engines are easily beatable in?
- qw3rty01 5y ago
  stupid != easily beatable the AI will still avoid losing, but it also won't be able to find the endgame strategy to win
a1369209993 5y ago
> But it has no intuition. On the contrary, by your own description: > Something about the heuristics used to prune the vast search space can make it miss [these]. it does have a intuition. And in these cases, its intuition is wrong.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  It's not clear it's helpful in understanding intelligence to simply redefine terms to be "whatever the computer happens to be doing". In this way it will always appear that a computer is intelligent; trivially. Rather we should start with what known intelligent systems (ie., animals) are actually doing, and then compare. I think it's extremely unlikely the mechanism of intuition in relevant animals (esp. humans) has anything to do with heuristics for pruning a search space.
  - lmm 5y ago
    How are you defining intelligence so that that animals are "known" to have it but computers aren't? And what do we know about what animals are actually doing? I think it's very likely that intuition in animals will have similar mechanisms to the things that produce the same results in computer reasoning, since the problems are the same and so optimisation processes (whether evolutionary or designed) will likely converge on the same solutions.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      Computers don't reason. Computation isn't a property of any physical system, it's a subjective property attributed by an observer. For example, consider a circuit. Suppose we attribute TRUE to 3v, and FALSE to 0v. Then two simultaneous input of 3v, 3v giving 3v (and so on: 33->3, 03->0, 30->0, 00->0) can be said to compute AND. But the same physical system is at the same time "computing" OR. Here we attribute TRUE to the 0 signal. Any "computer" is actually simultaneously running many, quite radically different, programs. We only attribute one program to it in how we rig devices (screens, keyboards, etc.) to interpret signals to mean something device-relative. If you "plug a speaker in a gfx socket" the output isn't visual. It means something completely different, and the GPU is computing audio now. So "computational" algorithms in being merely purely formal specifications do not describe any unique physical system, and only apply to physical systems in an observer-relative way. Computation is explanatorily bankrupt; it is only a game people play in rigging physical systems to behave as they wish. Animals however have the intrinsic property of intelligence: it isn't observer-relative. We are, quite literally, the observer imparting meaning to our environment. Our brain states resolve to unique thoughts, not to "many radically different ones simultaneously". Gold isn't both gold AND something else, and neither is thinking. The category of explanation for these abilities which are intrinsic to animals cannot be, and is not, computational. It's scientific. Involving characterising the properties of materials, and their causal effects.
FemmeAndroid 5y ago
This is actually a category of moves on sites like Chess.com. They categorize moves into things like blunder, mistake, inaccuracy, good, best. But the top move is 'Brilliant' and the second best is 'Best Move.' Best move is the move the chess engine thinks is the best, and brilliant is the category for moves that weren't considered, but turn out to be the best. They're uncommon, but if you play enough, you'll hit them occasionally. https://support.chess.com/article/364-how-does-the-game-report-analysis-work https://support.chess.com/article/364-how-does-the-game-repo...
- nebulous1 5y ago
  Did a little reading and it seems that chess.com are a little ambiguous as to exactly what they're doing here. Two plausible theories are 1) They run an evaluation of the position to a certain depth and come up with the Best move. Then, when evaluating your opponent's position if you didn't make the Best move, it turns out that it evaluates this position as even more in your favour than the Best move, it calls your previous move Brilliant. 2) They run an evaluation of the position up to a certain depth and note the Best move as the most advantageous one. They then search a bit deeper and if the move you actually took wasn't the best in the original eval but now is, they call it Brilliant. There would of course be a few caveats to both ideas. In 1 do they go and rerun the evaluation after the Best move to compare? Are they running the whole analysis backwards anyway (this seems to cause problems with both systems)? My suspicion would be number 2 given the way it's phrased in your link, but I've seen other descriptions that make it sound more like 1. My overall takeaway is that it's simply a bad idea to have the category to begin with as it just confuses matters for little gain, at at least they should provide a more technical description. I'd wager that close to 0% of Brilliant moves were intentionally calculated so there was no brilliancy as the term is usually used in chess.
- rurban 5y ago
  In the chess literature this categorization is established as !!, !, !?, ?!, ?, ?? for over a century now. Everybody loves the !! and ?! moves which do not only evade chess engines but also humans.
cpleppert 5y ago
Huh? The only thing I can think of is that the engine analysis can swing immediately once the move is played because it hasn’t thought about the new position for very long. Obviously if you just watch a stream the evaluation changes immediately. It would be very rare for the computer in the first place not to have a strong move as one of its candidate entries. Obviously the evaluation can shift but the difference shouldn’t be apparent to a human player and it would be even more unlikely that a computer would reject a top move but a human would find it.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  This usually happens in very open position, with many <0.5cp options. The engines tend to explore totally different paths than humans. They don't care if a move is slow, forcing, etc. Humans will tend to explore exchanges, faster & more forceful lines. Engines treat these like any other line, without prejudice. I'm a pretty average player. My positional moves aren't generally reasoned beyond 2-3 moves ahead. I go here. You do something, then I go there. Where I do reason deeper, it's usually forceful lines where a lot of material is traded. I go here. We trade 3 pieces. I attack this. Opponent defends, then I move there. In a slower position, I can't reason ahead as much because I have no idea what the opponent might do. He has too many options.
  - valec 5y ago
    > Engines treat these like any other line, without prejudice. i'm not sure if i'm understanding 100% what you're saying but don't most engine heuristics try more potentially favorable first, such as moving a pawn? i think most modern engines have pretty aggressive move ordering
    - codeflo 5y ago
      You’re correct. The more aggressive version of this is called “move pruning”, effectively cutting off entire branches of the search tree. Techniques like this are essential for the strength of modern chess engines, but like every heuristic, they can be wrong. Sometimes, the engine makes a mistake because it literally didn’t consider a certain response.
Agentlien 5y ago
Your second paragraph vaguely reminds me that in Magic: The Gathering there are some decks that focus on attaining a certain combination of cards which would put you in a position where you cannot lose if you play them right. Some play those decks while being a bit fuzzy on the details. They couldn't actually finish it if pressed, but rely on opponents recognising the combo and conceding.
- thom 5y ago
  One of my favourite Magic stories is Luis Scott-Vargas splitting the top 4 of a Vintage tournament with Storm having forgotten to put Tendrils of Agony, one of his two win conditions, in his sideboard to Burning Wish for. Most of his opponents scooped with Burning Wish on the stack. https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2vaoe4/lsv_on_the_vintage_tournament_where_he_forgot_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2vaoe4/lsv_on_the...
tinus_hn 5y ago
Once there are only a few pieces left, chess seems like a solvable game. With three pieces there’s about 250000 positions, can’t a modern computer just check them all?
- tromp 5y ago
  Indeed; endgame tablebases have been constructed for all positions with up to 7 pieces (including kings), and at some point in the not too distant future, we expect to have all 8 piece ones as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase
- Someone 5y ago
  3 pieces is two kings and one other piece. That’s easy (I think it can be summed up as “draw if that piece is a knight or a bishop, won otherwise, unless the piece can be taken in move 1 or the starting position is a stalemate”) It gets harder fairly rapidly as you add pieces. What you describe is a tablebase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase: “By 2005, all chess positions with up to six pieces (including the two kings) had been solved. By August 2012, tablebases had solved chess for every position with up to seven pieces (the positions with a lone king versus a king and five pieces were omitted because they were considered to be "rather obvious")”
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Oh yes I forgot the kings are 2 already.
OhNoMyqueen 5y ago
> When watching the WC games, I've seen it happen that a move wasn't considered as a top move by the engine, but once played the engine realizes it's actually crushing. You don't need to watch WC game to witness that. Any position sharp enough will have swinging evaluations at the search horizon, and even amateurs can find a twist in their favor if they're lucky enough (to have their 8-moves ahead flash of genius actually work 20 moves ahead by complete chance). In decent engines the heuristics used to prune the search tree range from exact (e.g. alpha-beta prunning) to conservatively innexact (low chance to actually miss something), and unless you find a systematic winning or drawing pattern (like the examples in OP's article), you can't beat the engine with your "intuition".
kohlerm 5y ago
what is intuition? To me it is just very good pattern matching. I recommend everyone to play against the Leela chess engine with a very low number of search nodes. Start with 1 node and you will find that it rarely makes bad moves. The estimated ELO is around 2400-2500 for Leela with one node. which to me means that Leela does not have to look at much more positions than a human does. How is this not intuition?
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  Well, because it's Monte Carlo Tree Search with a learned evaluation function?

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> I've seen it happen that a move wasn't considered as a top move by the engine, but once played the engine realizes it's actually crushing. Something about the heuristics used to prune the vast search space can make it miss sacrifices or seemingly sub-optimal moves that temporarily weakens the perceived position but has a huge payoff in the end. But humans find them. Just to observe, humans display exactly the same phenomenon of ignoring a move before it's made while still being able to realize, after it's made, that it was very strong and ignoring it was a mistake.

curiousllama 5y ago
The word I would use for a move like that is “counterintuitive” Which... suggests the computer displays intuition
- taneq 5y ago
  Exactly. In fact you could argue that intuition, ‘arriving at a conclusion without a conscious understanding of your reasoning’, is the only thing a neural net displays.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  Well played. OP's choice of words is inexact. The engine has a different intuition, not none. Humans will usually explore trades and overlook seemingly "slow" moves that the computer usually finds. What the engine does lacks is what chess players call "theory," hence the need for endgame DBs. Humans can also beat engines with "logic," like the Naka match. That one was extraordinary. A simpler & more typical example is isolating a pawn so that it can't ever be defended, but also can't be attacked immediately. For a human, it's easy to understand this is long term vulnerability even if the pawn survives for 20+ more moves. Anti-computer strategies, ironically, force you to "play the player, not the board."
- Longwelwind 5y ago
  Isn't an heuristic the exact definition of an intuition (i.e. a way to evaluate a complex situation using simpler rules that woks most of the times)?
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    Intuitions often do not deliver the correct response; many puzzles and paradoxes (not to mention a few philosophical arguments) hang on misleading intuitions. Furthermore, heuristics are rules, while intuitions are not. Sometimes people use their intuition to go against what a heuristic suggests!
mjburgess 5y ago
Yes, and they display the converse. It's the existence of the converse behaviour which is distinguishing. A machine which is just pruning a search space with a low-quality valuation strategy isn't doing anything very impressive; only very fast. A human with a very high quality valuation technique, but a slow search pace, is relevantly impressive.

bottled_poe 5y ago

No intuition? What is intuition other than a position assessment heuristic? Game-tree AI must limit the game tree search at some depth. In order to exploit this, the opponent would need to identify the position strength at a deeper level than the AI’s search depth, which seems unlikely.

ipaddr 5y ago
A game like 'go' is a better example of this type of endless tree depth where human intuition can out perform game tree searches.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  I'm fine with labelling it "intuition" if you are able to avoid searching the game tree to sift potentially good moves and positions from bad, but in this case machines have intuition too now. Which is why AlphaZero plays Go with similar performance to the best human players.
  - taneq 5y ago
    Is it really similar performance? Last I heard it was crushing all competition, human or otherwise?
    - eru 5y ago
      It has crushed all human competition. They haven't made AlphaGo play against other computers (apart from versions of itself). And it's neither publicly available nor playing humans anymore. However, a few other engines have re-implemented ideas from AlphaGo. Leela Zero is one of them.
- pmontra 5y ago
  Alpha Zero and the other open source deep learning Go engines seems to be able to give 2 or 3 stones handicap to the top human players. In my experience, between two strong players: 2 stones means "I can lose some even games against you but not often" 3 stones means "I won't lose a single even game unless I'm drunk" 4 stones means "You really didn't understand this game yet"

FartyMcFarter 5y ago

> Also, an engine without an endgame tablebase can be pretty stupid. What is an example of a realistic endgame (not something with 9 white pawns, 5 black knights and such) that chess engines are easily beatable in?

qw3rty01 5y ago
stupid != easily beatable the AI will still avoid losing, but it also won't be able to find the endgame strategy to win

a1369209993 5y ago

> But it has no intuition. On the contrary, by your own description: > Something about the heuristics used to prune the vast search space can make it miss [these]. it does have a intuition. And in these cases, its intuition is wrong.

mjburgess 5y ago
It's not clear it's helpful in understanding intelligence to simply redefine terms to be "whatever the computer happens to be doing". In this way it will always appear that a computer is intelligent; trivially. Rather we should start with what known intelligent systems (ie., animals) are actually doing, and then compare. I think it's extremely unlikely the mechanism of intuition in relevant animals (esp. humans) has anything to do with heuristics for pruning a search space.
- lmm 5y ago
  How are you defining intelligence so that that animals are "known" to have it but computers aren't? And what do we know about what animals are actually doing? I think it's very likely that intuition in animals will have similar mechanisms to the things that produce the same results in computer reasoning, since the problems are the same and so optimisation processes (whether evolutionary or designed) will likely converge on the same solutions.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    Computers don't reason. Computation isn't a property of any physical system, it's a subjective property attributed by an observer. For example, consider a circuit. Suppose we attribute TRUE to 3v, and FALSE to 0v. Then two simultaneous input of 3v, 3v giving 3v (and so on: 33->3, 03->0, 30->0, 00->0) can be said to compute AND. But the same physical system is at the same time "computing" OR. Here we attribute TRUE to the 0 signal. Any "computer" is actually simultaneously running many, quite radically different, programs. We only attribute one program to it in how we rig devices (screens, keyboards, etc.) to interpret signals to mean something device-relative. If you "plug a speaker in a gfx socket" the output isn't visual. It means something completely different, and the GPU is computing audio now. So "computational" algorithms in being merely purely formal specifications do not describe any unique physical system, and only apply to physical systems in an observer-relative way. Computation is explanatorily bankrupt; it is only a game people play in rigging physical systems to behave as they wish. Animals however have the intrinsic property of intelligence: it isn't observer-relative. We are, quite literally, the observer imparting meaning to our environment. Our brain states resolve to unique thoughts, not to "many radically different ones simultaneously". Gold isn't both gold AND something else, and neither is thinking. The category of explanation for these abilities which are intrinsic to animals cannot be, and is not, computational. It's scientific. Involving characterising the properties of materials, and their causal effects.

FemmeAndroid 5y ago

This is actually a category of moves on sites like Chess.com. They categorize moves into things like blunder, mistake, inaccuracy, good, best. But the top move is 'Brilliant' and the second best is 'Best Move.' Best move is the move the chess engine thinks is the best, and brilliant is the category for moves that weren't considered, but turn out to be the best. They're uncommon, but if you play enough, you'll hit them occasionally. https://support.chess.com/article/364-how-does-the-game-report-analysis-work https://support.chess.com/article/364-how-does-the-game-repo...

nebulous1 5y ago
Did a little reading and it seems that chess.com are a little ambiguous as to exactly what they're doing here. Two plausible theories are 1) They run an evaluation of the position to a certain depth and come up with the Best move. Then, when evaluating your opponent's position if you didn't make the Best move, it turns out that it evaluates this position as even more in your favour than the Best move, it calls your previous move Brilliant. 2) They run an evaluation of the position up to a certain depth and note the Best move as the most advantageous one. They then search a bit deeper and if the move you actually took wasn't the best in the original eval but now is, they call it Brilliant. There would of course be a few caveats to both ideas. In 1 do they go and rerun the evaluation after the Best move to compare? Are they running the whole analysis backwards anyway (this seems to cause problems with both systems)? My suspicion would be number 2 given the way it's phrased in your link, but I've seen other descriptions that make it sound more like 1. My overall takeaway is that it's simply a bad idea to have the category to begin with as it just confuses matters for little gain, at at least they should provide a more technical description. I'd wager that close to 0% of Brilliant moves were intentionally calculated so there was no brilliancy as the term is usually used in chess.
rurban 5y ago
In the chess literature this categorization is established as !!, !, !?, ?!, ?, ?? for over a century now. Everybody loves the !! and ?! moves which do not only evade chess engines but also humans.

cpleppert 5y ago

Huh? The only thing I can think of is that the engine analysis can swing immediately once the move is played because it hasn’t thought about the new position for very long. Obviously if you just watch a stream the evaluation changes immediately. It would be very rare for the computer in the first place not to have a strong move as one of its candidate entries. Obviously the evaluation can shift but the difference shouldn’t be apparent to a human player and it would be even more unlikely that a computer would reject a top move but a human would find it.

dalbasal 5y ago
This usually happens in very open position, with many <0.5cp options. The engines tend to explore totally different paths than humans. They don't care if a move is slow, forcing, etc. Humans will tend to explore exchanges, faster & more forceful lines. Engines treat these like any other line, without prejudice. I'm a pretty average player. My positional moves aren't generally reasoned beyond 2-3 moves ahead. I go here. You do something, then I go there. Where I do reason deeper, it's usually forceful lines where a lot of material is traded. I go here. We trade 3 pieces. I attack this. Opponent defends, then I move there. In a slower position, I can't reason ahead as much because I have no idea what the opponent might do. He has too many options.
- valec 5y ago
  > Engines treat these like any other line, without prejudice. i'm not sure if i'm understanding 100% what you're saying but don't most engine heuristics try more potentially favorable first, such as moving a pawn? i think most modern engines have pretty aggressive move ordering
  - codeflo 5y ago
    You’re correct. The more aggressive version of this is called “move pruning”, effectively cutting off entire branches of the search tree. Techniques like this are essential for the strength of modern chess engines, but like every heuristic, they can be wrong. Sometimes, the engine makes a mistake because it literally didn’t consider a certain response.

Agentlien 5y ago

Your second paragraph vaguely reminds me that in Magic: The Gathering there are some decks that focus on attaining a certain combination of cards which would put you in a position where you cannot lose if you play them right. Some play those decks while being a bit fuzzy on the details. They couldn't actually finish it if pressed, but rely on opponents recognising the combo and conceding.

thom 5y ago
One of my favourite Magic stories is Luis Scott-Vargas splitting the top 4 of a Vintage tournament with Storm having forgotten to put Tendrils of Agony, one of his two win conditions, in his sideboard to Burning Wish for. Most of his opponents scooped with Burning Wish on the stack. https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2vaoe4/lsv_on_the_vintage_tournament_where_he_forgot_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2vaoe4/lsv_on_the...

tinus_hn 5y ago

Once there are only a few pieces left, chess seems like a solvable game. With three pieces there’s about 250000 positions, can’t a modern computer just check them all?

tromp 5y ago
Indeed; endgame tablebases have been constructed for all positions with up to 7 pieces (including kings), and at some point in the not too distant future, we expect to have all 8 piece ones as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase
Someone 5y ago
3 pieces is two kings and one other piece. That’s easy (I think it can be summed up as “draw if that piece is a knight or a bishop, won otherwise, unless the piece can be taken in move 1 or the starting position is a stalemate”) It gets harder fairly rapidly as you add pieces. What you describe is a tablebase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase: “By 2005, all chess positions with up to six pieces (including the two kings) had been solved. By August 2012, tablebases had solved chess for every position with up to seven pieces (the positions with a lone king versus a king and five pieces were omitted because they were considered to be "rather obvious")”
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Oh yes I forgot the kings are 2 already.

OhNoMyqueen 5y ago

> When watching the WC games, I've seen it happen that a move wasn't considered as a top move by the engine, but once played the engine realizes it's actually crushing. You don't need to watch WC game to witness that. Any position sharp enough will have swinging evaluations at the search horizon, and even amateurs can find a twist in their favor if they're lucky enough (to have their 8-moves ahead flash of genius actually work 20 moves ahead by complete chance). In decent engines the heuristics used to prune the search tree range from exact (e.g. alpha-beta prunning) to conservatively innexact (low chance to actually miss something), and unless you find a systematic winning or drawing pattern (like the examples in OP's article), you can't beat the engine with your "intuition".

kohlerm 5y ago

what is intuition? To me it is just very good pattern matching. I recommend everyone to play against the Leela chess engine with a very low number of search nodes. Start with 1 node and you will find that it rarely makes bad moves. The estimated ELO is around 2400-2500 for Leela with one node. which to me means that Leela does not have to look at much more positions than a human does. How is this not intuition?

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
Well, because it's Monte Carlo Tree Search with a learned evaluation function?