AlphaZero: Will People Treat Chess the Way they Treat Tic-Tac-Toe?
Sort:
Shut up fucking 13 yr old peso
Aug 20, 2020
0
#62
IDK, for the most part people play chess with the assumption that it's a forced draw. Having proof that it is indeed drawn doesn't imply one has the ability to force such draw. If someone published a perfect line that draws, you can simply choose to exit its variation and force your oponent to think.
long_quach wrote:
SeniorPatzer wrote:
Will people treat chess like the way they treat tic-tac-toe?
The first time I taught a lady chess, she said, "It's just a bigger version of tic-tac-toe." (verbatim).
SeniorPatzer wrote:
In other words, is this the "death" of chess?
I don't know if you know this. The Chessmaster series of computer programs were the most commercially successful program in the world.
It died.
Chess lived on.
AlphaZero (or whatever will die, chess will live on).
Lies
Aug 20, 2020
0
#64
Debistro escribió:
JMurakami wrote:
Chess being solved? Nah.
What should amaze is that no one has dared to post the games annotated in deep.
For starters, AlphaZero played in a style that reminded me of Petrosian and Fischer: It breaks the opponent's coordination and deprives "him" of any activity whatsoever. It doesn't need to calculate that many positions because is using some as "known and safe islands" to navigate across an ocean. Pretty much as humans do when calculating to reach positions regarded as "advantageous" due to previous known patterns.
But more interesting –to me– is how it has deduced a value (more precise than what we know) for piece activity. Some of its "material offers" can only be based on that, as it isn't calculating that many positions. In other words, its techniques for position assessment are more precise than humans'.
And I say interesting because we, humans, can learn and replicate such approach and evaluations, while we can't use brute force as current engines do.
Same reason no GM has ever bothered annotating games from previous engine-engine games all this while, and we have tons and tons of games at long time controls by now.
Meanwhile, AlphaZero's games look like they are on a different level, even GMs may have difficulty understanding them, hence no annotations. This thing doesn't know strategy, and yet.....it does. It's like it sees the entire board all the time and knows every square intimately. And then it does tactics like Stockfish on steroids.
Humans simply cannot do the same.
More interesting would be a series of matches between AlphaZero vs a top GM like Carlsen, or a highly booked-up GM on openings, with AlphaZero knowing NO opening theory. And let's see what it comes up with. It will probably creates tons of novelties, and this is what most human GMs are interested in, I presume. In fact, some openings have already been rendered/presumed dead by AlphaZero....
And then we have Lc0 which has been shown to be stronger than A0. Seriously though, it's really overestimated.
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Debistro escribió:
JMurakami wrote:
Chess being solved? Nah.
What should amaze is that no one has dared to post the games annotated in deep.
For starters, AlphaZero played in a style that reminded me of Petrosian and Fischer: It breaks the opponent's coordination and deprives "him" of any activity whatsoever. It doesn't need to calculate that many positions because is using some as "known and safe islands" to navigate across an ocean. Pretty much as humans do when calculating to reach positions regarded as "advantageous" due to previous known patterns.
But more interesting –to me– is how it has deduced a value (more precise than what we know) for piece activity. Some of its "material offers" can only be based on that, as it isn't calculating that many positions. In other words, its techniques for position assessment are more precise than humans'.
And I say interesting because we, humans, can learn and replicate such approach and evaluations, while we can't use brute force as current engines do.
Same reason no GM has ever bothered annotating games from previous engine-engine games all this while, and we have tons and tons of games at long time controls by now.
Meanwhile, AlphaZero's games look like they are on a different level, even GMs may have difficulty understanding them, hence no annotations. This thing doesn't know strategy, and yet.....it does. It's like it sees the entire board all the time and knows every square intimately. And then it does tactics like Stockfish on steroids.
Humans simply cannot do the same.
More interesting would be a series of matches between AlphaZero vs a top GM like Carlsen, or a highly booked-up GM on openings, with AlphaZero knowing NO opening theory. And let's see what it comes up with. It will probably creates tons of novelties, and this is what most human GMs are interested in, I presume. In fact, some openings have already been rendered/presumed dead by AlphaZero....
And then we have Lc0 which has been shown to be stronger than A0. Seriously though, it's really overestimated.
._.
Aug 20, 2020
0
#66
Yes, no joke. Modern day Lc0 will beat Stockfish 8 even more convincingly than A0 did, the CCC already tested this.
https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship#event=alphazero-simulation-match
._.
Imma unfollow
Aug 20, 2020
0
#69
alpha_zer000 escribió:
._.
A0 - SF8
+155-6=839
52 elo difference
Lc0 - SF8
132/200
115 elo difference
Aug 20, 2020
0
#70
long_quach wrote:
Let me give you some perspective, since you're all so crazy about computers.
I have Windows 7 on a big box computer. I don't have fancy tablet computers or anything. I don't have Kindle. I bought a couple of Kindle books.
Now Windows 7 can't read those Kindle books. I have to read it online (if I can afford real Internet again instead of $25 wi-fi per month).
We can still read Gilgamesh on clay tablets, while computer tablets are obsolete from 10 years ago.
You might be missing a possibly more important perspective - separation of content from storage, transmission and display.
Aug 20, 2020
0
#71
long_quach wrote:
autobunny wrote:
long_quach wrote:
Let me give you some perspective, since you're all so crazy about computers.
I have Windows 7 on a big box computer. I don't have fancy tablet computers or anything. I don't have Kindle. I bought a couple of Kindle books.
Now Windows 7 can't read those Kindle books. I have to read it online (if I can afford real Internet again instead of $25 wi-fi per month).
We can still read Gilgamesh on clay tablets, while computer tablets are obsolete from 10 years ago.
You might be missing a possibly more important perspective - separation of content from storage, transmission and display.
If I don't have Internet access, the Kindle books I bought are gone. Gone into thin air. Which is ironic, because the wifi Internet is transmitted through thin air. Hmm.
Perhaps you're mixing up business models and technology. Perhaps you don't understand either. Or perhaps the bunny misunderstood everything.
Aug 20, 2020
0
#72
This is what happens when geeks ask questions.
Chess is a game. There are many different reasons to play. It will never go away, computers or not, because there are so many permutations that it will still interest people who play for enjoyment and to exercise their minds.
Think of it this way - a calculator can solve all kinds of equations. But that doesn't mean learning to add, subtract, multiple, divide, and solve equations on a piece of paper is a waste of time. Because when you master mathematics and spend your time developing a mathematical model to describe something, for example, scientific data or the load bearing weight for a steel-reinforced concrete floor, you probably want that piece of paper to scribble some notes while you're thinking. No computer can do that. So quit worrying about the "fun" being taken away from things.
long_quach wrote:
This is a 100% true story.
Little brother of a friend, 10 years old.
Me: So you're 10.
Him: Yes.
Me: Are you learning the multiplication table?
Him: Starting to.
Me: What's 9 x 2 ?
Him: We didn't get the nines yet. (verbatim)
That's what happens when you learn things by rote memory.
WHAT he is 10 and doesnt know simple multiplication, i learned/memorized this when i was 4/5 but later i learned how to actually do it without memorizing when i was about 6.
long_quach wrote:
Computers weren't born yesterday. It goes back to the first home computers.
A wooden chess set vs.
The Atari 2600, $200 in 1977, $840 bucks today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_2600
The Colleco
The Vectrex
The Apple II e
The Commodore 64
The Nindendo
The Sega
The 3DO
The Playstation
on and on and on and on
They are all DEAD.
A wooden chess set still works. And people still play it.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-device-do-you-use-to-play-chess
this is true
Play Go, it's the one game where computers can't as easily demolish you given near impeccable play.
Aug 22, 2020
0
#79
Long story short @long_quach, it would seem you just don't understand technology. A bad workman blames his tools. Just something to consider before you start explaining more stuff to the sadly uninformed bunny.
There was a time before the printing press as well 😊