3 ms·

I am bad in chess game by itself like 1200 ELO, but I can write Programm and win player with 2600 ELO. Does it mean I am pro chess gamer?

by numitus 18d ago

MattCruikshank 18d ago
Do I care if Richard Feynman was only able to do nuclear physics with the help of an abacus? Sure, a Spelling Bee is a fun thing to have. Little kids work so hard. They practice for hours. There's joy and heartbreak. Prized, sometimes. Notoriety. But in the real world, computer-assisted spelling is by far the norm. Sometimes you care about the Bee, sometimes you care about the results.
- numitus 18d ago
  This is called a benchmark. We run a calculation of Pi to evaluate a computer's performance, but we don't allow the script to download a ready-made solution. When we evaluate a runner, we don't let them use a bicycle. When we evaluate a new LLM, we don't allow it to send a request to a team of programmers, so using a chess engine for an LLM is cheating
  - MattCruikshank 17d ago
    If an LLM writes AlphaZero, and it competes with itself, and is dominant (and beats stockfish!!!), with no book positions cribbed from its learning... The LLM has a process to beat chess. Just like, if it doesn't inherently know how to multiply 13 * 17 without using Python to do it... I don't really care. Maybe you do care. Maybe you want an LLM to be able to do work, only in its head. But I kind of can't understand the desire for that limitation... I mean, I do. But it seems ridiculously arbitrary. Like driving a car in 2nd gear and complaining that it gets terrible mileage and can't go fast enough. The Drive gear is literally right there.
    - numitus 15d ago
      The assumption is that if an LLM is incapable of playing chess—a game with a relatively small number of pieces, clear and simple rules, and perfect information—even after reading a hundred thousand books on chess, then it is fundamentally incapable of managing an army or a factory. This is because those scenarios involve more 'pieces,' incomplete and fuzzy information, and implicit rules that need to be deduced independently. It doesn't matter whether it has tools or not. It's simply that running tests with chess is cheap, whereas testing with an army or writing a browser from scratch is quite time-consuming and expensive.

I am bad in chess game by itself like 1200 ELO, but I can write Programm and win player with 2600 ELO. Does it mean I am pro chess gamer?

by numitus 18d ago

I am bad in chess game by itself like 1200 ELO, but I can write Programm and win player with 2600 ELO. Does it mean I am pro chess gamer?

MattCruikshank 18d ago

Do I care if Richard Feynman was only able to do nuclear physics with the help of an abacus? Sure, a Spelling Bee is a fun thing to have. Little kids work so hard. They practice for hours. There's joy and heartbreak. Prized, sometimes. Notoriety. But in the real world, computer-assisted spelling is by far the norm. Sometimes you care about the Bee, sometimes you care about the results.

numitus 18d ago
This is called a benchmark. We run a calculation of Pi to evaluate a computer's performance, but we don't allow the script to download a ready-made solution. When we evaluate a runner, we don't let them use a bicycle. When we evaluate a new LLM, we don't allow it to send a request to a team of programmers, so using a chess engine for an LLM is cheating
- MattCruikshank 17d ago
  If an LLM writes AlphaZero, and it competes with itself, and is dominant (and beats stockfish!!!), with no book positions cribbed from its learning... The LLM has a process to beat chess. Just like, if it doesn't inherently know how to multiply 13 * 17 without using Python to do it... I don't really care. Maybe you do care. Maybe you want an LLM to be able to do work, only in its head. But I kind of can't understand the desire for that limitation... I mean, I do. But it seems ridiculously arbitrary. Like driving a car in 2nd gear and complaining that it gets terrible mileage and can't go fast enough. The Drive gear is literally right there.
  - numitus 15d ago
    The assumption is that if an LLM is incapable of playing chess—a game with a relatively small number of pieces, clear and simple rules, and perfect information—even after reading a hundred thousand books on chess, then it is fundamentally incapable of managing an army or a factory. This is because those scenarios involve more 'pieces,' incomplete and fuzzy information, and implicit rules that need to be deduced independently. It doesn't matter whether it has tools or not. It's simply that running tests with chess is cheap, whereas testing with an army or writing a browser from scratch is quite time-consuming and expensive.