3 ms·

The thing is classical chess (unlike eg; go) is essentially "solved" when run on computers capable of extreme depth. Modern chess engines play essentially flawl

The thing is classical chess (unlike eg; go) is essentially "solved" when run on computers capable of extreme depth. Modern chess engines play essentially flawlessly.

KK7NIL 2y ago
The developers of stockfish and lc0 (and the many weaker engines around) would disagree, we've seen their strength improve considerably over the last few years. Currently there's a very interesting war between small neural networks on the CPU with high search depth alpha-beta pruning (stockfish NNUE) and big neural networks on a GPU with Monte Carlo search and lower depth (lc0). So, while machines beating humans is "solved", chess is very far from solved (just ask the guys who have actually solved chess endgames with 8 or less pieces).
- GaggiX 2y ago
  Stockfish and lc0 would always draw if they are not put in unbalanced starting positions, the starting position will be swapped in the next game to make it fair.
  - KK7NIL 2y ago
    In classical controls (what TCEC mainly uses), yes. They can play pretty exciting bullet chess without a forced opening though.
- KolmogorovComp 2y ago
  > ask the guys who have actually solved chess endgames with 8 or less pieces Source?
solveit 2y ago
We really have no way to know this. But I would be very surprised if modern chess engines didn't regularly blunder into losing (from the perspective of a hypothetical 32-piece tablebase) positions, and very very surprised if modern chess engines perfectly converted tablebase-winning positions.
- __s 2y ago
  not only blunder into losing positions, but also blunder from winning positions into draws even in human chess people sometimes mistaken draw frequency to reflect both sides playing optimally, but there are many games where a winning advantage slips away into a draw
- janalsncm 2y ago
  The fact that TCEC games aren’t all draws suggests that computers aren’t perfect. Stockfish loses to Leela sometimes for example.
  - grumpopotamus 2y ago
    Tcec games are deliberately played from imbalanced opening positions. The draw rate would be much higher for the top participants if this wasn't forced. However, I agree that engines are not perfect. I have heard this claim many times before a new engine came along that showed just how beatable the state of the art engines still were at the time.
  - Davidzheng 2y ago
    Most TCEC starting positions are borderline lost
- KK7NIL 2y ago
  We do know this, there are many positions (primarily sharp middle game one's) where SF/lc0 will significantly change their evaluation as they go deeper. This problem gets better the more time they spend on one position but it's an inevitable consequence of the horizon effect and it's why (except for 8 pieces or less), chess is far from solved.
  - Davidzheng 2y ago
    Far from strongly solved but i would wager current SF will not lose half of its white games against any future engine
__s 2y ago
compared to humans yes, but between themselves in TCEC progress continues. TCEC has AIs play both sides of random openings, rather than stick to playing chess's initial position. The same happens for checkers amongst humans, where opening positions are randomized
janalsncm 2y ago
Chess is not “solved”. Solved doesn’t mean computers can beat humans, it means for any chess board position we can tell whether white wins, black wins, or the game is drawn with perfect play. We would know if the starting position was drawn, for example. No computers now or in the foreseeable future will be capable of solving chess. It has an average branching factor over 30 and games can be over 100 moves.
- Davidzheng 2y ago
  There's strong solved and weak latter only needs to be unbeatable from starting. Now it's definitely not probable that SF isn't beatable from initial but honestly it's not impossible. The drawing margin is pretty big for engines
primitivesuave 2y ago
This is accurate for endgames only. In complicated positions, there is still room for improvement - the recent game of lc0 vs stockfish where lc0 forced a draw against an impending checkmate is a good example. There is currently no way for a chess engine searching a massive game tree can see how an innocuous pawn move enables a forced stalemate 40 moves down the line.
- Davidzheng 2y ago
  Honestly SF plays better in middle game positions on average I would guess. I think usually there's a bigger draw margin in middle games
  - primitivesuave 2y ago
    I think you are correct as I recall there is a set of middle game chess puzzles where Stockfish outperformed the other chess engines by a wide margin - I can't find the link as it was years ago. Not sure how the state-of-the-art has progressed since then. But I do believe the "horizon effect" plays a role in whether an engine decides to forcibly draw a game, which afforded Stockfish + NNUE a distinct advantage (at least at the time).

The thing is classical chess (unlike eg; go) is essentially "solved" when run on computers capable of extreme depth. Modern chess engines play essentially flawlessly.

KK7NIL 2y ago

The developers of stockfish and lc0 (and the many weaker engines around) would disagree, we've seen their strength improve considerably over the last few years. Currently there's a very interesting war between small neural networks on the CPU with high search depth alpha-beta pruning (stockfish NNUE) and big neural networks on a GPU with Monte Carlo search and lower depth (lc0). So, while machines beating humans is "solved", chess is very far from solved (just ask the guys who have actually solved chess endgames with 8 or less pieces).

GaggiX 2y ago
Stockfish and lc0 would always draw if they are not put in unbalanced starting positions, the starting position will be swapped in the next game to make it fair.
- KK7NIL 2y ago
  In classical controls (what TCEC mainly uses), yes. They can play pretty exciting bullet chess without a forced opening though.
KolmogorovComp 2y ago
> ask the guys who have actually solved chess endgames with 8 or less pieces Source?

solveit 2y ago

We really have no way to know this. But I would be very surprised if modern chess engines didn't regularly blunder into losing (from the perspective of a hypothetical 32-piece tablebase) positions, and very very surprised if modern chess engines perfectly converted tablebase-winning positions.

__s 2y ago
not only blunder into losing positions, but also blunder from winning positions into draws even in human chess people sometimes mistaken draw frequency to reflect both sides playing optimally, but there are many games where a winning advantage slips away into a draw
janalsncm 2y ago
The fact that TCEC games aren’t all draws suggests that computers aren’t perfect. Stockfish loses to Leela sometimes for example.
- grumpopotamus 2y ago
  Tcec games are deliberately played from imbalanced opening positions. The draw rate would be much higher for the top participants if this wasn't forced. However, I agree that engines are not perfect. I have heard this claim many times before a new engine came along that showed just how beatable the state of the art engines still were at the time.
- Davidzheng 2y ago
  Most TCEC starting positions are borderline lost
KK7NIL 2y ago
We do know this, there are many positions (primarily sharp middle game one's) where SF/lc0 will significantly change their evaluation as they go deeper. This problem gets better the more time they spend on one position but it's an inevitable consequence of the horizon effect and it's why (except for 8 pieces or less), chess is far from solved.
- Davidzheng 2y ago
  Far from strongly solved but i would wager current SF will not lose half of its white games against any future engine

__s 2y ago

compared to humans yes, but between themselves in TCEC progress continues. TCEC has AIs play both sides of random openings, rather than stick to playing chess's initial position. The same happens for checkers amongst humans, where opening positions are randomized

janalsncm 2y ago

Chess is not “solved”. Solved doesn’t mean computers can beat humans, it means for any chess board position we can tell whether white wins, black wins, or the game is drawn with perfect play. We would know if the starting position was drawn, for example. No computers now or in the foreseeable future will be capable of solving chess. It has an average branching factor over 30 and games can be over 100 moves.

Davidzheng 2y ago
There's strong solved and weak latter only needs to be unbeatable from starting. Now it's definitely not probable that SF isn't beatable from initial but honestly it's not impossible. The drawing margin is pretty big for engines

primitivesuave 2y ago

This is accurate for endgames only. In complicated positions, there is still room for improvement - the recent game of lc0 vs stockfish where lc0 forced a draw against an impending checkmate is a good example. There is currently no way for a chess engine searching a massive game tree can see how an innocuous pawn move enables a forced stalemate 40 moves down the line.

Davidzheng 2y ago
Honestly SF plays better in middle game positions on average I would guess. I think usually there's a bigger draw margin in middle games
- primitivesuave 2y ago
  I think you are correct as I recall there is a set of middle game chess puzzles where Stockfish outperformed the other chess engines by a wide margin - I can't find the link as it was years ago. Not sure how the state-of-the-art has progressed since then. But I do believe the "horizon effect" plays a role in whether an engine decides to forcibly draw a game, which afforded Stockfish + NNUE a distinct advantage (at least at the time).