3 ms·

>Do you actually play chess? Yes. I have a chess set on my kitchen counter from playing blindfold last night. I led my high school to the state championship. I

>Do you actually play chess? Yes. I have a chess set on my kitchen counter from playing blindfold last night. I led my high school to the state championship. I am rated ~2000 in blitz and crazyhouse on Lichess. I watched 10+ analysis videos of AlphaZero when it came out. If you have a criticism of my claim, just state the criticism. Even if I was a grandmaster, I would not be immune from being wrong. And to be clear, my claim is that human experts usually (not always) understand the pros and cons of a move made by AlphaZero. My claim is not that human experts usually know why one move, with its set of pros and cons, was selected over another move, with a different set of pros and cons. And of course, there are exceptions. Super long endgame sequences, for example. Even with a lifetime I doubt any human can understand these sequences beyond the tautological "it's winning because it wins": https://en.chessbase.com/post/just-one-of-17-823-400-766-positions-2?fbclid=IwAR0dVUSQaM8rAR9wujSqbSbwSahhBy5OoFfVzV2cC99j1qjSpGPE88EQNAE https://en.chessbase.com/post/just-one-of-17-823-400-766-pos...

texasbigdata 5y ago
Being friends with a bunch of grandmasters....3500 is a long ways you there. You might both be right.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> And to be clear, my claim is that human experts usually (not always) understand the pros and cons of a move made by AlphaZero. It’s more than human experts apply a posteriori the tools they typically use to analyse chess games to games played by AlphaZero. These tools are specifically crafted to analyse chess so they obviously shed some lights on what’s happening but even then some plays were seen as counterintuitive. An easy example is how AlphaZero can sacrifice pieces or tempos to cripple the mobility of the opposition pieces. If you carefully analyse the full game, you can see that it’s probably why the move was made but it’s completely counterintuitive when it’s played as the relative value of some winning tradeoffs made by AlphaZero are impossible to evaluate for a human player.
- maest 5y ago
  > It’s more than human experts apply a posteriori the tools they typically use to analyse chess games to games play by AlphaZero. I largely agree with this and I was about to make the same point before reading your comment. However, as GP said upthread: > This paper builds on that concept and finds that not only are a superhuman AI's moves usually understandable by experts, but even some of the superhuman AI's internal representations are understandable by experts (!). Internal structures mapping to concepts high level players already use is a good indicator that the AI is "thinking" about chess in the same way as humans do.
proverbialbunny 5y ago
Today the world's best players (not just chess) play against bots like AlphaZero. They can learn from their opponent. Today that is what it takes to be the best in the world. Even if most moves are normal, clearly AlphaZero and other bots are doing something different or they wouldn't be world's best.

texasbigdata 5y ago

Being friends with a bunch of grandmasters....3500 is a long ways you there. You might both be right.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago

> And to be clear, my claim is that human experts usually (not always) understand the pros and cons of a move made by AlphaZero. It’s more than human experts apply a posteriori the tools they typically use to analyse chess games to games played by AlphaZero. These tools are specifically crafted to analyse chess so they obviously shed some lights on what’s happening but even then some plays were seen as counterintuitive. An easy example is how AlphaZero can sacrifice pieces or tempos to cripple the mobility of the opposition pieces. If you carefully analyse the full game, you can see that it’s probably why the move was made but it’s completely counterintuitive when it’s played as the relative value of some winning tradeoffs made by AlphaZero are impossible to evaluate for a human player.

maest 5y ago
> It’s more than human experts apply a posteriori the tools they typically use to analyse chess games to games play by AlphaZero. I largely agree with this and I was about to make the same point before reading your comment. However, as GP said upthread: > This paper builds on that concept and finds that not only are a superhuman AI's moves usually understandable by experts, but even some of the superhuman AI's internal representations are understandable by experts (!). Internal structures mapping to concepts high level players already use is a good indicator that the AI is "thinking" about chess in the same way as humans do.

proverbialbunny 5y ago

Today the world's best players (not just chess) play against bots like AlphaZero. They can learn from their opponent. Today that is what it takes to be the best in the world. Even if most moves are normal, clearly AlphaZero and other bots are doing something different or they wouldn't be world's best.