6 ms·

> There is, I think, couple of ways to do it. One way would be to not be greedy and only get help from time to time. So if I was the player I would not rely for

by tbrake 4y ago

> There is, I think, couple of ways to do it. One way would be to not be greedy and only get help from time to time. So if I was the player I would not rely for the algorithm for every move, just sometimes. Just enough so that it makes a difference. This is something Magnus has said before as well (paraphrasing): "If I got engine help for just one or two positions a game I would win every time."

bombcar 4y ago
Good players could cheat with a bot. Great players know exactly when they’d use a bot on a single move.
Bakary 4y ago
At their level of play, a single one-bit message can tip the scales in dramatic fashion. All you have to know is that there is a great move to be found in a particular position, without even knowing what the move is.
- tbrake 4y ago
  Correct. They're often already playing at ~95% engine matching moves and/or with negligible difference in centipawn loss. Getting the help to push that to 98% would be a dominant advantage. Funnily (to me) post-game analysis often highlights the computers finding incredible defensive resources instead of attacking ones. But it's exactly these kinds of moves - the fearless counter-thrust to equality while your king's position looks hopeless - that are the most inhuman of all and likely to draw suspicion.
- treis 4y ago
  Engine moves aren't really like that though. They aren't dramatic strokes of brilliance. They're slightly odd moves that pay off 20-30 moves later. And it's a little bit of a meta game. Engines are ultimately playing against themselves when determining the best move. So they might discard a brilliant looking move because of some line that no human is reasonably going to come up with. Similarly they might make a brilliant move that humans don't recognize as such because no human can analyze as deeply as ane engine. So when a computer looks at a board and says there is/isn't a great move that's not necessarily the same as what a person would think.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    I don't entirely disagree but consider the following: 1) To be useless to a top player, the decision tree needs to have only long term gains and be barren in terms of short term human-readable profits. 2) In the same vein, the metagaming pruning process you have described has to unfold a certain way, in the context of a game where most of the previous moves have been played by humans and not machines and where there is therefore much more of a chance of an unbalance compared to a purely computed position. 3) the above criteria of long-term, short-term, readability etc. must be defined according to players that are already 95% or so precise. The missing percentages mean that they always get smoked by machines over the course of a game, but can have a remarkable ability to see good lines.
    - treis 4y ago
      The problem is if we're sending 1 bit of information that is something along the lines of "go for it" or "something's there" or whatever. That's just not something an engine can tell you outside of specific scenarios where there is a really good move to be made. You probably could rejigger the engine to factor into account the likelihood of a human finding the right moves and relative downside. Like an engine might reject a move that leaves them a half pawn down if the opponent makes 25 difficult to find moves in a row. But that risk/reward would be worth it going against a flawed human player. Perhaps it could also work in conjunction with another GM that you train with regularly. They can use an engine and do the evaluation above themselves.
      - Bakary 4y ago
        I see what you mean. This would indeed be most useful with an accomplice, and a lot dicier and ambiguous without.
  - JacobThreeThree 4y ago
    Humans can find engine moves, especially when they have hours on the clock like in classical chess. If you can consistently spend the majority of your time on the most critical moments when game-breaking moves could be found with enough calculation, that's enough to tip the scales dramatically over many games. Sure, the human won't find the move every time, but it's still a huge edge.

by tbrake 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

Good players could cheat with a bot. Great players know exactly when they’d use a bot on a single move.

Bakary 4y ago

At their level of play, a single one-bit message can tip the scales in dramatic fashion. All you have to know is that there is a great move to be found in a particular position, without even knowing what the move is.

tbrake 4y ago
Correct. They're often already playing at ~95% engine matching moves and/or with negligible difference in centipawn loss. Getting the help to push that to 98% would be a dominant advantage. Funnily (to me) post-game analysis often highlights the computers finding incredible defensive resources instead of attacking ones. But it's exactly these kinds of moves - the fearless counter-thrust to equality while your king's position looks hopeless - that are the most inhuman of all and likely to draw suspicion.
treis 4y ago
Engine moves aren't really like that though. They aren't dramatic strokes of brilliance. They're slightly odd moves that pay off 20-30 moves later. And it's a little bit of a meta game. Engines are ultimately playing against themselves when determining the best move. So they might discard a brilliant looking move because of some line that no human is reasonably going to come up with. Similarly they might make a brilliant move that humans don't recognize as such because no human can analyze as deeply as ane engine. So when a computer looks at a board and says there is/isn't a great move that's not necessarily the same as what a person would think.
- Bakary 4y ago
  I don't entirely disagree but consider the following: 1) To be useless to a top player, the decision tree needs to have only long term gains and be barren in terms of short term human-readable profits. 2) In the same vein, the metagaming pruning process you have described has to unfold a certain way, in the context of a game where most of the previous moves have been played by humans and not machines and where there is therefore much more of a chance of an unbalance compared to a purely computed position. 3) the above criteria of long-term, short-term, readability etc. must be defined according to players that are already 95% or so precise. The missing percentages mean that they always get smoked by machines over the course of a game, but can have a remarkable ability to see good lines.
  - treis 4y ago
    The problem is if we're sending 1 bit of information that is something along the lines of "go for it" or "something's there" or whatever. That's just not something an engine can tell you outside of specific scenarios where there is a really good move to be made. You probably could rejigger the engine to factor into account the likelihood of a human finding the right moves and relative downside. Like an engine might reject a move that leaves them a half pawn down if the opponent makes 25 difficult to find moves in a row. But that risk/reward would be worth it going against a flawed human player. Perhaps it could also work in conjunction with another GM that you train with regularly. They can use an engine and do the evaluation above themselves.
    - Bakary 4y ago
      I see what you mean. This would indeed be most useful with an accomplice, and a lot dicier and ambiguous without.
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago
  Humans can find engine moves, especially when they have hours on the clock like in classical chess. If you can consistently spend the majority of your time on the most critical moments when game-breaking moves could be found with enough calculation, that's enough to tip the scales dramatically over many games. Sure, the human won't find the move every time, but it's still a huge edge.