3 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.