4 ms·

Here is a thought experiment for beating AlphaZero. Randomly select 10K children at a very young age (say 3), have them play chess against AlphaZero but simply

Here is a thought experiment for beating AlphaZero. Randomly select 10K children at a very young age (say 3), have them play chess against AlphaZero but simply have them move the exact move suggested by AlphaZero (i.e. basically this is AlphaZero playing itself). Play 10 games per day for 10 years. The hypothesis is some children will deeply embed the algorithms into their own playing style - leveraging the subconscious to the greatest degree possible. Basically, we are training the human mind in the same way that we train AI. Would it work? Probably not, but our current approach (studying openings, etc.) is obviously not working so it makes sense to try something new.

cognaitiv 4y ago
My 10yo daughter plays a chess app mostly with suggestions turned on. It has substantially improved her game when we play together. Way more effective for her than my coaching, although I’m a total amateur. I think this would work without a doubt.
macspoofing 4y ago
>Would it work? Probably not "Probably not" indeed. Human brains need to be stimulated in order for them to build their neural net. Blindly following instruction is not stimulating. >but our current approach (studying openings, etc.) is obviously not working That's part of the current approach, not the full approach. Kids that show promise in Chess, already train with computers today (in addition to personalized coaching, and strategy study). I have no doubt that the current generation of chess players is best of all time, and that the next generation will be even better. Even with that, I don't think any human will be able to train enough to beat even Stockfish, much less Alpha Zero - just as no human will ever train enough to beat computers at arithmetic.
- pvitz 4y ago
  Stockfish is stronger than AlphaZero.
  - firsttimebigboy 4y ago
    What makes you say that? Everything I've seen says AlphaZero beat SF8 easily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero#Chess_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero#Chess_2
    - goatlover 4y ago
      Because that was several years ago. SF has improved since then.
      - cfreksen 4y ago
        To elaborate, in the Top Chess Engine Championship (which is also used as a benchmark in the AlphaZero vs Stockfish comparison) Stockfish has won all seasons since May 2020[1,2]. A common runner up for those seasons is LCZero[3], which is an engine that is derived from/a reimplementation of AlphaZero. Stockfish is also ahead of LCZero in Fischer random chess (as hosted at TCEC) winning 4 out of the 5 FRC tournaments. As for how close Stockfish 8 is to a current version of Stockfish, Stockfish 15 has ~400 more ELO than Stockfish 8 as measured in their own self-tests[4]. However, when making these comparisons between AlphaZero and Stockfish it might be tempting to frame it as machine-learning-engine vs classical-engine, which is not true. Stockfish incorporates a neural network when evaluating chess positions[5]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chess_Engine_Championship#Tournament_results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chess_Engine_Championship#... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockfish_(chess)#Top_Chess_Engine_Championship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockfish_(chess)#Top_Chess_En... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leela_Chess_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leela_Chess_Zero [4]: https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Regression-Tests#fishtest-progression https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Regression-Tests#... [5]: https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2020/introducing-nnue-evaluation/ https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2020/introducing-nnue-evalua...
        pvitz 4y ago
        Great summary! Also, at [1], one can hear Deepmind hinting at that state-of-the-art engines (Stockfish, Leela Chess Zero) will beat Alphazero. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2MncpRMnFA&feature=youtu.be&t=2612 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2MncpRMnFA&feature=youtu.be...
- osigurdson 4y ago
  >> just as no human will ever train enough to beat computers at arithmetic. Think of the amount of complex computation must be happening for an elite gymnast for example. Sure, they aren't solving the equations consciously but at some level computation is happening - or even something as simple as making sense of all of the individual photons arriving at the eye. The subconscious is what I am suggesting we try to exploit. Even then, it seems likely that a "special" brain would be needed - hence why large numbers would be required in order to find it.
  - macspoofing 4y ago
    >Think of the amount of complex computation must be happening for an elite gymnast for example. By that logic, my cat should be trainable to a Chess Grandmaster level because she performs complex computation as she navigates my backyard. >The subconscious is what I am suggesting we try to exploit. Is there any evidence that a subconscious is exploitable it that way ... at all. Because learning doesn't work that way - especially for higher-order knowledge like Chess.
sinuhe69 4y ago
I find the question interesting and thought-provoking, so very much in the spirit of HN. But I find it distressing that some were quickly to downvote it (without even a discussion?). AFAIK, downvoting on HN is not like Unlike on other social networks. You should downvote only if the comment is irrelevant, nonsensical or violates the community guidelines. The parent comment is in my opinion none of these.
Shorel 4y ago
I think that would be transferring one particular network in a fuzzy way to a set of children, but it would not be transferring any of the training tools and feedback models that can improve the network. The biggest failing would be, of course, the children would not know how to play against moves that are not optimal. This is the most important part of chess knowledge: given some suboptimal play, prove it is suboptimal by defeating the player who made the suboptimal move. Otherwise, as some chess schools do, they would be repeating famous openings by rote, without understanding the meaning behind each move in the opening. This ability would matter little when playing against Alpha Zero, but it would make all the difference when playing against humans.

cognaitiv 4y ago

My 10yo daughter plays a chess app mostly with suggestions turned on. It has substantially improved her game when we play together. Way more effective for her than my coaching, although I’m a total amateur. I think this would work without a doubt.

macspoofing 4y ago

>Would it work? Probably not "Probably not" indeed. Human brains need to be stimulated in order for them to build their neural net. Blindly following instruction is not stimulating. >but our current approach (studying openings, etc.) is obviously not working That's part of the current approach, not the full approach. Kids that show promise in Chess, already train with computers today (in addition to personalized coaching, and strategy study). I have no doubt that the current generation of chess players is best of all time, and that the next generation will be even better. Even with that, I don't think any human will be able to train enough to beat even Stockfish, much less Alpha Zero - just as no human will ever train enough to beat computers at arithmetic.

pvitz 4y ago
Stockfish is stronger than AlphaZero.
- firsttimebigboy 4y ago
  What makes you say that? Everything I've seen says AlphaZero beat SF8 easily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero#Chess_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero#Chess_2
  - goatlover 4y ago
    Because that was several years ago. SF has improved since then.
    - cfreksen 4y ago
      To elaborate, in the Top Chess Engine Championship (which is also used as a benchmark in the AlphaZero vs Stockfish comparison) Stockfish has won all seasons since May 2020[1,2]. A common runner up for those seasons is LCZero[3], which is an engine that is derived from/a reimplementation of AlphaZero. Stockfish is also ahead of LCZero in Fischer random chess (as hosted at TCEC) winning 4 out of the 5 FRC tournaments. As for how close Stockfish 8 is to a current version of Stockfish, Stockfish 15 has ~400 more ELO than Stockfish 8 as measured in their own self-tests[4]. However, when making these comparisons between AlphaZero and Stockfish it might be tempting to frame it as machine-learning-engine vs classical-engine, which is not true. Stockfish incorporates a neural network when evaluating chess positions[5]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chess_Engine_Championship#Tournament_results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chess_Engine_Championship#... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockfish_(chess)#Top_Chess_Engine_Championship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockfish_(chess)#Top_Chess_En... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leela_Chess_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leela_Chess_Zero [4]: https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Regression-Tests#fishtest-progression https://github.com/glinscott/fishtest/wiki/Regression-Tests#... [5]: https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2020/introducing-nnue-evaluation/ https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2020/introducing-nnue-evalua...
      - pvitz 4y ago
        Great summary! Also, at [1], one can hear Deepmind hinting at that state-of-the-art engines (Stockfish, Leela Chess Zero) will beat Alphazero. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2MncpRMnFA&feature=youtu.be&t=2612 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2MncpRMnFA&feature=youtu.be...
osigurdson 4y ago
>> just as no human will ever train enough to beat computers at arithmetic. Think of the amount of complex computation must be happening for an elite gymnast for example. Sure, they aren't solving the equations consciously but at some level computation is happening - or even something as simple as making sense of all of the individual photons arriving at the eye. The subconscious is what I am suggesting we try to exploit. Even then, it seems likely that a "special" brain would be needed - hence why large numbers would be required in order to find it.
- macspoofing 4y ago
  >Think of the amount of complex computation must be happening for an elite gymnast for example. By that logic, my cat should be trainable to a Chess Grandmaster level because she performs complex computation as she navigates my backyard. >The subconscious is what I am suggesting we try to exploit. Is there any evidence that a subconscious is exploitable it that way ... at all. Because learning doesn't work that way - especially for higher-order knowledge like Chess.

sinuhe69 4y ago

I find the question interesting and thought-provoking, so very much in the spirit of HN. But I find it distressing that some were quickly to downvote it (without even a discussion?). AFAIK, downvoting on HN is not like Unlike on other social networks. You should downvote only if the comment is irrelevant, nonsensical or violates the community guidelines. The parent comment is in my opinion none of these.

Shorel 4y ago

I think that would be transferring one particular network in a fuzzy way to a set of children, but it would not be transferring any of the training tools and feedback models that can improve the network. The biggest failing would be, of course, the children would not know how to play against moves that are not optimal. This is the most important part of chess knowledge: given some suboptimal play, prove it is suboptimal by defeating the player who made the suboptimal move. Otherwise, as some chess schools do, they would be repeating famous openings by rote, without understanding the meaning behind each move in the opening. This ability would matter little when playing against Alpha Zero, but it would make all the difference when playing against humans.