3 ms·
That's not the point. The point is if you truly want to test its strength, you'll have to control for these things. Maybe do things like invent a new form of no
by mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
That's not the point. The point is if you truly want to test its strength, you'll have to control for these things. Maybe do things like invent a new form of notation and/or deliberately go into uncharted territory. Maybe start with a non-standard starting position even. Or play chess960 against it.
In theory if I was playing a 1200 player I would almost always win, but let's say they have some extremely devious preparation that I fell into due to nonchalance and by the time we're both out of book I'm down a queen. It might not matter that I'm 600 points stronger at that point. If they don't make a sufficient amount of errors in return I will lose anyway.
- sebzim4500 4y agoChatGPT would probably play worse under those conditions, but then humans also get worse. ACPL is way higher at top level 960 events than at normal tournaments, for example
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoThis is true. But I think ChatGPT compared to a human player of equivalent strength(leaving the dubious number 1400 out for now) will probably have a lot more opening knowledge than the human. So it would be interesting to eliminate all opening knowledge and that way be able to qualitately get at which aspects of chess it's actually good at, which is sucks out, and how much of its strength can be attributed to opening knowledge. I'm still impressed by this btw. I did not expect this to be possible at all really. But being impressed is not an excuse to ignore methodological flaws. :)