3 ms·
> And it's impossible to raise your estimated score, No, what I was saying is that it's absolutely possible to raise your estimated score, because your estimat
by SamBam 5y ago
> And it's impossible to raise your estimated score,
No, what I was saying is that it's absolutely possible to raise your estimated score, because your estimated score is only an estimation of who has the best position.
If AlphaZero is better than Stockfish, then by definition it will make moves that sometimes raise its estimated score, because Stockfish is only as good as its ability to estimate the score of a position better. So Stockfish must occasionally underestimate a position, and then later (after another move or two) is forced to reevaluate (because while it's worse, it's not stupid).
AlphaZero wins because, and precisely because, it believes some positions are more favorable than Stockfish does. You can almost see it as an arbitrage between the two estimations. That's what I was finding cool, and the point of my post.
- vikingerik 5y agoYou're right, of course. What we're really talking about is the fallibility of estimations (and arbitraging between them) - you can't raise your score as projected by an omniscient computing power, but you can as estimated by real engines limited by their fallibility (and AlphaZero is less fallible.) Mostly I'm pointing out that these estimations represent the best guess of an ultimately limited engine. People tend to treat those engine evaluations as actual numbers, like scores in a sport like baseball or some such, but they're not.