4 ms·
It doesn't provide a clear explanation in those terms, and in some fraction of positions, there is no simple such explanation. But I believe that in a decent fr
by tromp 4y ago
It doesn't provide a clear explanation in those terms, and in some fraction of positions, there is no simple such explanation. But I believe that in a decent fraction of cases, a human chess player probing PVs will gain a reasonable understanding of the winning or drawing strategy involved, and that such interactive PV probing is often a better form of explanation than a concise non-interactive textual one could offer.
There is no equivalent to that in neural networks.
Note that PVs explain the connection between the root position of minimax search and a leaf positions. Evaluation at the latter is easy to explain in terms of features like material, mobility, pawn structure, king safety, etcetera.
- karpierz 4y agoI agree that a human can use the PV to get insight into why a move might be good. I also agree that non-interactive explanations provided by a chess engine will often be inferior. I think one way to break it down might be that the PV (or sets of PVs) can provide a useful explanation of tactical value (Kf3 leads to mate in 6), but struggles to explain strategic value (Kf3 leads to the positioning opening up, which broadly makes it harder for you to press your advantage). > There is no equivalent to that in neural networks. The first example that comes to mind is using backpropagation to determine how much influence each value had on the output result, and then rendering it in a human-readable way. Stuff like this: https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/0*Y3Yi7cEueF0XLZP- https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/0*Y3Yi7cEueF0XLZP- https://miro.medium.com/max/1100/1*IPhQ12OKnxH31AQNja6FnQ.png https://miro.medium.com/max/1100/1*IPhQ12OKnxH31AQNja6FnQ.pn...
- thethirdone 4y agoInteractive PV probing is just playing chess against the AI to better understand the position. That is literally the interface for which people built chess AIs. Unfortunately that misses a lot of what makes grandmasters worth listening to. GMs will say things like "Kh6 almost works, but fails to ..." which is not something you can get out of a computer currently. Computers currently fail to explain any moves which are good ideas, but are not the best move now. Humans normally describe these moves as "resources" which are good to keep in mind for the future or to play later when the board cools down.