Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Stockfish dethroned (big time)?! (Read 15583 times)
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 376
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #54 - 12/08/18 at 13:25:03
Post Tools
Hi.

Apparently a 1000 game match has been played between Alphazero and Stockfish 8. Here are a few tidbits.

This seems like a case of Alphazero overplaying his hand. Possibly Alphazero miscalculated before playing his 79th (?)


Alphazero wins with the Dutch (24...Ng5!!)


And doesn't mind playing (and winning with) the Berlin:


Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IsaVulpes
Senior Member
****
Offline


No.

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/09/07
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #53 - 04/17/18 at 19:05:26
Post Tools
https://lichess.org/blog/WtNG7CcAAFMTTHPj/gm-andrew-tang-vs-leela-chess-zero
GM Andrew Tang, better known as bulletmonster penguingm1, is going to play a showmatch against current Leela on April 22, 3 PM UTC.
She is currently estimated to be about 2500, but climbing rather fast - when I posted about her less than a month ago, she was still somewhere around 1800.

Meanwhile, Stockfish 9 won the TCEC Grand Finals with +20-2=78, arguably dominating Houdini 6 harder than SF8 got crushed by A0.

Computerchess sure shows no sign of stopping..
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1559
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #52 - 04/06/18 at 06:51:49
Post Tools
gillbod wrote on 04/05/18 at 19:50:40:
Where is this '2000 times better hardware coming from?

The really heavy hardware was while training Alpha Zero, not while Alpha Zero was playing.


Sorry I missrembered. We actually dont know exactly what hardware Stockfish used, the paper only said the number of threads (64) and 1 GB hashtable. Still Alpha Zero had better hardware but not 2000 times better as I stated.

I am no expert but I read at some forum that a single TPU has the same theoretical power as 500 Haswell cores. I thought I used the same numbers as during training but in the match it used 4 TPUs. And 4 TPUs means the power of 2000 Haswell cores so that where I missrembered the numbers from.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
gillbod
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 133
Joined: 03/26/13
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #51 - 04/05/18 at 19:50:40
Post Tools
bragesjo wrote on 04/05/18 at 08:27:37:
The odd short time contol choosen cleary favors the engine with 2000 times better hardware.


Where is this '2000 times better hardware coming from?

The really heavy hardware was while training Alpha Zero, not while Alpha Zero was playing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IsaVulpes
Senior Member
****
Offline


No.

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/09/07
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #50 - 04/05/18 at 09:40:23
Post Tools
Don't forget that just doing this a bit later would have generated tremendously different results -
The devbuild of SF9 is currently up +11-1=27 vs Houdini 6, incl. a few wins with Black and most notably a "double-win" (winning the same position with both colours).
https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/tcec-2018-superfinal/1/1/30

So yeah, overall this was mostly a proof-of-concept paired with an ad campaign. Of course an important proof, and I look forward to what Leela will produce in the future, but it's been rather thinly veiled that Google doesn't care about chess whatsoever and just wanted to score a nice headline in time for NIPS, and most likely consciously fiddled with the SF settings until they were to their liking.
Still doesn't matter too much to me - if A0 against "real" SF had gone even or potentially even lost, it would still just have been a question of more time (and/or better optimization for chess) until A0 has improved enough to 'really' beat Stockfish, so in the end it's more a bending of truth than a lie.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1559
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #49 - 04/05/18 at 08:27:37
Post Tools
I agree thats it is a breakthrought in science meaning. It is a great archivment for AI develpment.

I am only wanted point out that it won over an old and crippled version  for Stockfish. The makers of Stockfish belives that Alpha Zero would probebly have won anyway but it would have been a much closer match.

With a correct hash table size + a hiegh number of threads that it is actually tested for and with a timecontrol it is design for Stockfish would have gained several 100 elo points in strengh. Even more with tablesbases and opening book. The odd short time contol choosen cleary favors the engine with 2000 times better hardware.



  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
tipau
Full Member
***
Offline


I Like ChessPublishing!

Posts: 167
Location: London, England
Joined: 01/25/08
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #48 - 04/04/18 at 17:53:08
Post Tools
I don't think any of those things make the match 'fixed'. They mean that Alpha Zero wasn't playing against the strongest possible Stockfish that humanity could have been assembled.

Personally I very much doubt that a Stockfish with all those changes could have beaten the version that did play by a +28 score over 100 games, but who knows? Even if it could it really doesn't matter and is besides the main point. Alpha Zero taught itself to play chess with only the basic rules as an input and is a major breakthrough.
  

FIDE: ~2100
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1559
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #47 - 04/04/18 at 14:12:46
Post Tools
gillbod wrote on 03/31/18 at 19:57:21:
Why? Stockfish can't run decently on GPUs, why insist that Alpha Zero should run on CPUs?


I think that point was the match was more or less fixed.

1. Alpha Zero used 2000 times better hardware.
2. It was an old version of Stockfish.
3. A very stupid timecontrol that Stockfish is not designed for.
4. Stockfish got an high but completly unstested number of threads but way to low hashtable even for 8 threads so the number of threads simply weakened it since each thread consumes CPU power  that could be better spend on fewer threads and it had to calculate the same position over and over in many threads.
5. Stockfish got no opening book that it is designed to use while Alpha Zero had a sort of a homemade opening book.
6. Stockfish was not allowed to use tablebases that the engine is designed to use.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
gillbod
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 133
Joined: 03/26/13
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #46 - 03/31/18 at 19:57:21
Post Tools
tdv wrote on 03/28/18 at 18:40:53:
There was no real match... absolutely no interest to compare two "engines" working on 2 (so) different hardwares.

Stockfish remains the best until AlphaZero plays it on the same hardware, IMHO.


Why? Stockfish can't run decently on GPUs, why insist that Alpha Zero should run on CPUs?

Also, it's perfectly possible (even relatively easy) to set up a GPU instance in AWS infrastructure and have it talk to your local chess GUI (i.e. the heavy lifting will be done in the cloud, but you can still use your chess program of choice on your home computer).

So the hardware that Alpha Zero ran on is perfectly accessible to most dedicated people at home without having to buy a new computer.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tdv
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Let's play chess!

Posts: 18
Joined: 03/27/18
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #45 - 03/31/18 at 19:15:40
Post Tools
Yes, I learnt yesterday that it was playing 9 dan (even in its single computer version I think)...
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 718
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #44 - 03/31/18 at 13:35:35
Post Tools
tdv wrote on 03/31/18 at 02:07:08:
Yes, Leela (Sjeng) is a very interesting project, also involved in Go game for quite a long time. But I'm not sure if it obtained significant results yet.

Leela Zero (the Go program) is now pro strength.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tdv
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Let's play chess!

Posts: 18
Joined: 03/27/18
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #43 - 03/31/18 at 02:07:08
Post Tools
Yes, Leela (Sjeng) is a very interesting project, also involved in Go game for quite a long time. But I'm not sure if it obtained significant results yet.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
IsaVulpes
Senior Member
****
Offline


No.

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/09/07
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #42 - 03/29/18 at 17:47:10
Post Tools
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/882jr8/leela_chess_zero_the_fork_of_leel... There is now an effort to 'recreate' AlphaZero in Open Source! It's still quite a bit away (the post mentions ~400 days at current pace), but still quite interesting & not impossible that it will pick up some speed with more people joining in.
You can also play against the engine at its current level, and from what it sounds like (I haven't tried yet), it plays a lot more like actual humans than a handicapped engine normally would, which is exciting stuff.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tdv
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Let's play chess!

Posts: 18
Joined: 03/27/18
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #41 - 03/28/18 at 18:40:53
Post Tools
There was no real match... absolutely no interest to compare two "engines" working on 2 (so) different hardwares.

Stockfish remains the best until AlphaZero plays it on the same hardware, IMHO.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3024
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #40 - 01/21/18 at 11:15:24
Post Tools
mn wrote on 01/19/18 at 19:30:30:
For any chess24 premium members, one of the AlphaZero games is featured in Peter Svidler's "best games of 2017", and Jan Gustafsson has a video series out covering its treatment of the White side of the Queen's Indian.


Also covered by John Emms here on ChessPub, of course: http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/10/index.htm Smiley
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mn
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 420
Location: Ottawa
Joined: 09/22/16
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #39 - 01/19/18 at 19:30:30
Post Tools
For any chess24 premium members, one of the AlphaZero games is featured in Peter Svidler's "best games of 2017", and Jan Gustafsson has a video series out covering its treatment of the White side of the Queen's Indian.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 718
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #38 - 12/16/17 at 14:07:18
Post Tools
GabrielGale wrote on 12/16/17 at 02:39:36:
Quote:
There is one other conceptual difference between the way that AlphaZero and other engines do business, which I think is really important. Engines provide an assessment in terms of material equivalent; e.g., White is 1.5 pawns ahead. AlphaZero evaluates the position in terms of its expected winning percentage. If White wins 40 percent of the random games, draws 50 percent, and loses 10 percent, then the evaluation is 0.65 points, the expected number of points that White will score per game. (0.65 = 1 x 0.40 + ½ x 0.50) This is much more logical than evaluating the position in terms of pawns; after all, we play chess to win games, not to win pawns.

What do you think?

All engines provide assessment in centipawns because that's what the UCI protocol supports. I think some of them use winning probability under the hood and convert to centipawns for the UI. I know Houdini at least has operated like this in the past; I don't know if it still does now.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GabrielGale
Senior Member
****
Offline


Who was Thursday?

Posts: 466
Location: Sydney
Joined: 02/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #37 - 12/16/17 at 02:39:36
Post Tools
These two comments from DM are interesting:
Quote:
horizon effect? To evaluate a position, it simply plays hundreds of random games from that position. To you or me this may seem like a crazy idea, but actually it makes a certain amount of sense. In some positions there may be only one “correct” way for White to win — but often in these positions Black is visibly in trouble anyway.
Because AlphaZero is playing complete games, albeit random and imperfect ones, it is not susceptible to the horizon effect. Consider, for example, blockaded or “fortress” positions. Give AlphaZero one of these same blockaded positions, and it will see that in the blockaded position White only wins 1 percent of the games and 99 percent end in draws. Therefore, it will avoid the blockaded position. Presto, one of the weaknesses of chess computers goes away.

Quote:
There is one other conceptual difference between the way that AlphaZero and other engines do business, which I think is really important. Engines provide an assessment in terms of material equivalent; e.g., White is 1.5 pawns ahead. AlphaZero evaluates the position in terms of its expected winning percentage. If White wins 40 percent of the random games, draws 50 percent, and loses 10 percent, then the evaluation is 0.65 points, the expected number of points that White will score per game. (0.65 = 1 x 0.40 + ½ x 0.50) This is much more logical than evaluating the position in terms of pawns; after all, we play chess to win games, not to win pawns.

What do you think?
  

http://www.toutautre.blogspot.com/
A Year With Nessie ...... aka GM John Shaw's The King's Gambit (http://thekinggambit.blogspot.com.au/)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GabrielGale
Senior Member
****
Offline


Who was Thursday?

Posts: 466
Location: Sydney
Joined: 02/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #36 - 12/16/17 at 00:41:07
Post Tools
Moving beyond the discussion whether Stockfish was treated unfairly, to the question whether deep learning provides a different, and improved (?), way to learn and analyse chess, Dana Mackenzie has another blog on the issue:
http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/?p=5072

Also I note that GM Matthew Sadler is also looking at the AlphaMind games. Hopefully he will provide some analyses and conclusions.
I am also hoping that Ken Regan will have a look and report his conclusions own his joint-blog.
  

http://www.toutautre.blogspot.com/
A Year With Nessie ...... aka GM John Shaw's The King's Gambit (http://thekinggambit.blogspot.com.au/)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IsaVulpes
Senior Member
****
Offline


No.

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/09/07
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #35 - 12/12/17 at 13:19:48
Post Tools
https://www.chess.com/news/view/alphazero-reactions-from-top-gms-stockfish-autho... Some statements by players; at the bottom is also a long statement by the Stockfish Dev
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IsaVulpes
Senior Member
****
Offline


No.

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/09/07
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #34 - 12/09/17 at 09:52:02
Post Tools
MartinC wrote on 12/09/17 at 09:38:21:
Well that's actually quite a classic practical use for human players in chess too - create a mess and hope to get lucky Smiley

If that is in reference to my last paragraph, I meant more something like
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
If you give this position to Stockfish, it says "White is much better", and wants to play ..Qb7, ..a6, ..Qc7, ..Bb7, etc

If you give this position to AlphaZero, it *potentially* (don't know, none of the games had AZ trying to defend a worse position, perhaps this is better than the Go program in that respect - and as mentioned, with the drawing margin in chess everything may look differently) evaluates the Winning Percentage for ..Qb7 as 0, and basically tosses a coin between playing ..Qb7, or ..Qa4:, or ..Qb5:, or ..Bd5:, or etc (all of which it also evaluates at 0% winning chances), which obviously instantly lose - just to the program it doesn't matter, because it thinks it's lost either way.

IF that were the case, then it'd be very hard to use this program for human analysis, as you'd eg try out an opening novelty, get what looks like a slight advantage, and rather than defending with good moves, the program would just randomly sacrifice pieces and be lost 3 moves later Lips Sealed
« Last Edit: 12/09/17 at 17:58:27 by IsaVulpes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1941
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #33 - 12/09/17 at 09:38:21
Post Tools
Well that's actually quite a classic practical use for human players in chess too - create a mess and hope to get lucky Smiley

Doing that well would of course require a model of a fallible opponent, which I guess the alpha zero's never really get.
(they train vs themselves!).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IsaVulpes
Senior Member
****
Offline


No.

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/09/07
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #32 - 12/09/17 at 09:33:54
Post Tools
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/08/17 at 17:01:15:
But I agree it doesn't matter; if it didn't beat Stockfish today, it will tomorrow.

Yup, that in the end is "what matters".

I wrote my starting post in a relatively sceptical manner because indeed, maybe Stockfish would have won/drawn if it was the current dev build (rather than the year old commercial release), on a machine suited to its needs (rather than the very weird high thread / almost no RAM hardware), playing with a time control that it's build for (eg it has some time allocation features that provide some Elo, and those just disappear with a set amount of time/move), and with opening book + tablebases enabled (Stockfish creators know those exist & are used, so they obviously don't care as much about the engine performing well in those stages, while AlphaZero never used them and was "created" (created itself?) without them in mind - so obviously just disabling them will favour DeepMind), etc.

But in the end what that would truly accomplish would likely just be slowing down Google; forcing them to put some more work into optimizing the engine - letting them play against itself for longer, adding "classic" engine things that those do right, adding a functionality for usage of openingbooks and tablebases, etc

The big thing here was the showcase that the deep learning / monte carlo approach works for chess, when it was previously thought to peter out quickly (with several older attempts getting stuck around ~2400). This is an engine not optimized for chess at all, which has the very clear potential (if it's not achieved already) of being the strongest in the world; the rest of the finetuning as to whether it's truly capable of beating Stockfish with Black is mostly advertisement business.

Here's to hoping Google either sticks with it or allows other people their hands on it, rather than saying "Ok yeah we did it" and then 'scrapping' the rest of the project - I'd love to play around with it myself.

Vaguely related: It'd be interesting to see how the engine handles being in a worse position; else its concrete use for human players could quickly turn out to be relatively limited. As far as I understand, the AlphaGo program basically imploded on itself when in a "losing" position, because it just plays moves based on winning percentage, and if it evaluated a position as sufficiently bad, it didn't care much anymore about the concrete moves, as none of them would be anywhere close to winning, leading to it collapsing within a few moves from just a slightly worse position. Of course in chess that may very well just not apply at all, due to the huge margin for draws.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GabrielGale
Senior Member
****
Offline


Who was Thursday?

Posts: 466
Location: Sydney
Joined: 02/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #31 - 12/08/17 at 21:37:43
Post Tools
FYI:
a reconstructed transcript of a Skype conference call held November 21, 2017 between Nelson Hernandez of TCEC, Robert Houdart (developer of Houdini), Mark Lefler (programmer of Komodo) and GM Larry Kaufman (developer of Komodo).
http://www.chessdom.com/interview-with-robert-houdart-mark-lefler-and-gm-larry-k...

Quote:
I have one final question which you are all uniquely qualified to talk about. What changes do you foresee coming to computer chess in the next five years and what ramifications might they have? Mark, you first.
Mark: I think there is a lot that can still be done in terms of data mining. Taking a game and trying to extract information suggesting evaluation terms or pruning ideas or extensions, things like that. They have already started doing that.
We’re also really interested in Monte Carlo. I mean, what do you do when you now have a 44-core server? What is it going to be next year? At some point more cores don’t help very much. There is a website by Andreas Strangmuller who has done a lot of experiments. We have gone one to two, two to four, up to 32 processors, Stockfish and Komodo might gain 15 to 20 Elo or something going from 16 to 32, Stockfish even less. What do you do with all this hardware to use it more effectively? In Monte Carlo [garbled] statistics that might increase your winning chances. I think those are things you could work on.
Robert: Well, I think we are all waiting for artificial intelligence to pop up in chess after having seen the success of the artificial intelligence approach of Google for the Go game. And so basically what I would expect if some of these giant corporations would be interested is that in the next five years chess also might see that kind of development. For example the artificial intelligence for the evaluation of a position, it could produce some very surprising results in chess. And so, we’re probably waiting for that and then we can retire our old engines. Look at the AlphaChess engine that will be 4000 Elo. [chuckles]
Nelson: Yep, at that point we can all fade back into history. Larry, anything to add?
Larry: Well, I also followed closely the AlphaGo situation. The guy who is the head of it at Google Mind is a chess master himself, Demis Hassabis. Although Go is thought to be a much harder game than chess to beat the best humans at, and they have certainly proven that they can do that, it is so far yet to be proven that a learning program such as the latest one from DeepMind [can replicate that in chess]. Their latest learning program beat the pants off all other, previous Go programs. But that does not apply to chess. Nobody has a self-teaching chess program that can fight with Houdini or Komodo. That’s a fantasy. Maybe that’s the challenge, to get Google to prove that it applies to chess too. But who knows.
  

http://www.toutautre.blogspot.com/
A Year With Nessie ...... aka GM John Shaw's The King's Gambit (http://thekinggambit.blogspot.com.au/)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CanadianClub
Senior Member
****
Offline


Greetings from Catalonia!

Posts: 351
Joined: 11/11/12
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #30 - 12/08/17 at 19:32:52
Post Tools
For me, the results are outstanding. Beating even a stockfish 8 on my 4 core processors of my android smartphone with such AI techniques are simply relevant for the future of computer chess and chess in general. And I agree conditions are not completely fair, but it's not the more relevant thing. I suppose using stockfish and neither komodo nor Houdini is purely to not been accused formally of that lack of fairness by copyrighted engines\companies.

Are THIS useful for us nonprofessional players? Not sure when, but of course it will.

For me, opening play would be the first subject been affected.

We'll see.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1500
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #29 - 12/08/17 at 18:51:16
Post Tools
tp2205 wrote on 12/08/17 at 17:35:02:
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/08/17 at 17:01:15:
dfan wrote on 12/08/17 at 13:22:50:
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/08/17 at 12:13:55:
bragesjo wrote on 12/08/17 at 09:08:48:
The one thing I still dont understand is why Stockfish got 64 threads and only 1 GB ram?

My presumption is that some pre-testing testing was done and that those were the conditions that produced the best-looking results.

This would surprise me immensely. I'm not going to say it has non-zero probability, but it would be considered a really strong and nasty accusation in the machine-learning community and if they did it they would be aware that they were severely violating academic standards.

I do think it's quite likely that they set up Stockfish naively without worrying much about optimizing its performance, but it would really astonish me if they tried out lots of Stockfishes and picked the one that performed the worst.


Naive? You're talking about Google and some of the greatest AI experts in the world. They don't know what a hash table does? And what machine (from this earth) has 64 processors and 1G of RAM? The artificiality of this artificial intelligence test is glaring.

But I agree it doesn't matter; if it didn't beat Stockfish today, it will tomorrow. I think Kurzweil is fatuous, but this result is still terrifying. Technologies of such power serving the tender mercies and reserved wisdom of those whose hands they fall into...


Agreed. I don't think these result are meant for researchers. (64 processors -- not cores -- processors and 1GB is indeed a joke.) Google wants to sell its services (probably trying to replace IBM's Watson) and "4 hours + Google most powerful machines" >> "years and years of research by many people" is easy to remember. The decision makers in many companies are not researchers so minor points like missing details and weird machine specs may be overlooked.

Until more details emerge I consider the whole thing not much more than reasonably clever advertising.   


The thing is that they wanted to claim AlphaZero crushed the reigning world champ in computer chess. Really clever marketing. But using 1 GB of hash seems to me kinda like claiming you beat the world champ, when you in fact have played Magnus Carlsen in a bullet game, where you were allowed to see the board and Magnus played blindfolded and still had to move his pieces. If you win such a game, for sure you have beaten the world champ, but there is a tiny difference from a real match.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2874
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #28 - 12/08/17 at 18:51:07
Post Tools
I have tried StockFish, Komodo and so on, but I still prefer the evaluations given by Houdini 1.5 Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tp2205
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 163
Joined: 09/11/11
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #27 - 12/08/17 at 17:48:11
Post Tools
tp2205 wrote on 12/08/17 at 17:35:02:
...
Agreed. I don't think these result are meant for researchers. (64 processors -- not cores -- processors and 1GB is indeed a joke.) Google wants to sell its services (probably trying to replace IBM's Watson) and "4 hours + Google most powerful machines" >> "years and years of research by many people" is easy to remember. The decision makers in many companies are not researchers so minor points like missing details and weird machine specs may be overlooked.

Until more details emerge I consider the whole thing not much more than reasonably clever advertising.   


Sorry some corrections. I looked at the paper for details and they say 64 threads and 1GB hash size. They don't say anything about the number of processors or cores on which the 64 threads were running or the machine memory. Since you can run thousands of threads on one core this are pretty meaningless numbers.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tp2205
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 163
Joined: 09/11/11
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #26 - 12/08/17 at 17:35:02
Post Tools
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/08/17 at 17:01:15:
dfan wrote on 12/08/17 at 13:22:50:
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/08/17 at 12:13:55:
bragesjo wrote on 12/08/17 at 09:08:48:
The one thing I still dont understand is why Stockfish got 64 threads and only 1 GB ram?

My presumption is that some pre-testing testing was done and that those were the conditions that produced the best-looking results.

This would surprise me immensely. I'm not going to say it has non-zero probability, but it would be considered a really strong and nasty accusation in the machine-learning community and if they did it they would be aware that they were severely violating academic standards.

I do think it's quite likely that they set up Stockfish naively without worrying much about optimizing its performance, but it would really astonish me if they tried out lots of Stockfishes and picked the one that performed the worst.


Naive? You're talking about Google and some of the greatest AI experts in the world. They don't know what a hash table does? And what machine (from this earth) has 64 processors and 1G of RAM? The artificiality of this artificial intelligence test is glaring.

But I agree it doesn't matter; if it didn't beat Stockfish today, it will tomorrow. I think Kurzweil is fatuous, but this result is still terrifying. Technologies of such power serving the tender mercies and reserved wisdom of those whose hands they fall into...


Agreed. I don't think these result are meant for researchers. (64 processors -- not cores -- processors and 1GB is indeed a joke.) Google wants to sell its services (probably trying to replace IBM's Watson) and "4 hours + Google most powerful machines" >> "years and years of research by many people" is easy to remember. The decision makers in many companies are not researchers so minor points like missing details and weird machine specs may be overlooked.

Until more details emerge I consider the whole thing not much more than reasonably clever advertising.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1014
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #25 - 12/08/17 at 17:01:15
Post Tools
dfan wrote on 12/08/17 at 13:22:50:
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/08/17 at 12:13:55:
bragesjo wrote on 12/08/17 at 09:08:48:
The one thing I still dont understand is why Stockfish got 64 threads and only 1 GB ram?

My presumption is that some pre-testing testing was done and that those were the conditions that produced the best-looking results.

This would surprise me immensely. I'm not going to say it has non-zero probability, but it would be considered a really strong and nasty accusation in the machine-learning community and if they did it they would be aware that they were severely violating academic standards.

I do think it's quite likely that they set up Stockfish naively without worrying much about optimizing its performance, but it would really astonish me if they tried out lots of Stockfishes and picked the one that performed the worst.


Naive? You're talking about Google and some of the greatest AI experts in the world. They don't know what a hash table does? And what machine (from this earth) has 64 processors and 1G of RAM? The artificiality of this artificial intelligence test is glaring.

But I agree it doesn't matter; if it didn't beat Stockfish today, it will tomorrow. I think Kurzweil is fatuous, but this result is still terrifying. Technologies of such power serving the tender mercies and reserved wisdom of those whose hands they fall into...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
h4rl3k1n
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love Lurking On ChessPublishing!

Posts: 14
Joined: 09/05/16
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #24 - 12/08/17 at 16:39:37
Post Tools
The Stockfish community is indeed having a closer look at this. They're discussing, running tests and so on - scientists/engineers at work.
On the one hand, there is some reserverdness due to AlphaZero competing against a considerably lobotomized Stockfish, hardware issues being one point (opening books and tablebases being the other ones). On the other hand, there is no doubt that AlphaZero is a giant leap for chess. Everybody is biting his fingernails, waiting for the more thorough paper.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1500
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #23 - 12/08/17 at 16:07:41
Post Tools
bragesjo wrote on 12/08/17 at 14:23:37:
The ultimate thing would be if someone had access to two identical super computers with 64 threads and Stockfish met itself and 1 engine gets 1 gb ram and the other something extremly high like 32 gb ram and see if the performance is differenent at the same time control and rules used in the match.

EDIT
It is not 100% shure that there will be any perfomance increases considering the many threads and low time control. I may well end up the other way.  My knowledge of super computers is non existing I only know how my laptop works.



As a scientist, I agree that this would be interesting (though I would surely not call it the ultimate thing). However, as pointed out earlier in the thread, the result is astonishing no matter what.

But I also think that the team set up Stockfish in a sub-optimal way. The hash size, AFAIK, if set up properly will affect the calculations. It doesn't matter if there are many threads in this case, as they have to compute several lines over and over, as opposed to just keep those in the hash, right?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1559
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #22 - 12/08/17 at 14:23:37
Post Tools
The ultimate thing would be if someone had access to two identical super computers with 64 threads and Stockfish met itself and 1 engine gets 1 gb ram and the other something extremly high like 32 gb ram and see if the performance is differenent at the same time control and rules used in the match.

EDIT
It is not 100% shure that there will be any perfomance increases considering the many threads and low time control. I may well end up the other way.  My knowledge of super computers is non existing I only know how my laptop works.


  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
gewgaw
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 656
Location: europe
Joined: 09/09/04
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #21 - 12/08/17 at 14:19:10
Post Tools
Actually, it's irrelevant, if Stockfish's performance could have been improved at some point, this self learning algorithm is obviously superior to any approach so far and we have to get used to it, that in some cases no human influence is needed or helpful. This development will obviously shatter our whole life in many branches and maybe we only have to work two hours a week, because all standard work will be solved by an algorithm and we just check the results.
  

The older, the better - over 2200 and still rising.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 718
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #20 - 12/08/17 at 13:22:50
Post Tools
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/08/17 at 12:13:55:
bragesjo wrote on 12/08/17 at 09:08:48:
The one thing I still dont understand is why Stockfish got 64 threads and only 1 GB ram?

My presumption is that some pre-testing testing was done and that those were the conditions that produced the best-looking results.

This would surprise me immensely. I'm not going to say it has non-zero probability, but it would be considered a really strong and nasty accusation in the machine-learning community and if they did it they would be aware that they were severely violating academic standards.

I do think it's quite likely that they set up Stockfish naively without worrying much about optimizing its performance, but it would really astonish me if they tried out lots of Stockfishes and picked the one that performed the worst.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 718
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #19 - 12/08/17 at 13:13:52
Post Tools
GabrielGale wrote on 12/08/17 at 08:48:25:
@bonsai, without having read the paper as yet, I agree that the whole exercise looks as if it was not optimised, a bit rushed?

I think they were less interested in creating the best possible chess engine than in showing that their approach was sufficient to create a better-than-state-of-the-art chess engine.

For example, adding tablebases would make it stronger (there's basically no downside), but from an academic point of view it's not interesting at all and in fact would lessen the magnitude of the result, because it would test the neural-net/MCTS framework less by not forcing it to learn low-material endgames.

(Maybe if they had beefed up Stockfish more, they would have had to do more work to optimize AlphaZero!)

Quote:
perhaps rushing for bragging rights before end of the year?

The paper was released during NIPS, the biggest AI conference of the year, and I'm sure the timing was not coincidental.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1014
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #18 - 12/08/17 at 12:13:55
Post Tools
bragesjo wrote on 12/08/17 at 09:08:48:
The one thing I still dont understand is why Stockfish got 64 threads and only 1 GB ram?
When I analyse chess games I give it access to way more ram on my laptop.
It effects gameplay greatly at least on "normal laptops" but what happends with super computers with 64 threads I have no clue or on short time controls...




My presumption is that some pre-testing testing was done and that those were the conditions that produced the best-looking results. Don't forget, an enormous amount of prestige comes with this, worth many millions of dollars in corporate reputation. Google know exactly what they are doing with respect to hardware. AlphaZero may not be ready to beat Stockfish at 40 ply yet. Nevertheless, it's still terrifying that it did this in four hours, even if that's the equivalent of a year on a normal cluster: AlphaZero was not designed for chess but is a generalist.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1559
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #17 - 12/08/17 at 09:08:48
Post Tools
The one thing I still dont understand is why Stockfish got 64 threads and only 1 GB ram?
When I analyse chess games I give it access to way more ram on my laptop.
It effects gameplay greatly at least on "normal laptops" but what happends with super computers with 64 threads I have no clue or on short time controls...


  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GabrielGale
Senior Member
****
Offline


Who was Thursday?

Posts: 466
Location: Sydney
Joined: 02/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #16 - 12/08/17 at 08:56:45
Post Tools
PS, as has been noted, the man behind DeepMind is a former highly talented junior chess player (no 2 in the world at the time??) who turned to computing.
For your consideration, the GM who currently holds the record of being the 2nd youngest person to become a GM, Parimarjan Negi, also highly regarded chess author and noted chess opening theoretician, is studying at Stanford in computing.
What can we expect ......!!!???
Perhaps Google should snap him up! before graduation ......
  

http://www.toutautre.blogspot.com/
A Year With Nessie ...... aka GM John Shaw's The King's Gambit (http://thekinggambit.blogspot.com.au/)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GabrielGale
Senior Member
****
Offline


Who was Thursday?

Posts: 466
Location: Sydney
Joined: 02/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #15 - 12/08/17 at 08:48:25
Post Tools
@dfan, thanks for your reply. I missed that bit re authors.
I agree that deep learning/machine learning is currently the method. I am not familiar with events after AlphaGo but my initial thot, hence my query, was that deep learning is not that compatible with the current approach of chess engine programmers where it is merely crunching plies and which is why there is a need for GM consultants to provide parameters? I may be wrong??
@bonsai, without having read the paper as yet, I agree that the whole exercise looks as if it was not optimised, a bit rushed? perhaps rushing for bragging rights before end of the year?
I agree that with proper GM trainer as consultant ie providing scaffolding on how to train, the results could have been even more impressive. (yes, imagine Aagaard as consultant!?)
From bonsai's suggestions, I see a great advantages for chess players and for improvement for chess players the world around: if ever this gets to be affordable (trickle-down effect), we are looking at AI-powered personal chess trainers with personalised training regime targeted at specific weaknesses and strengths (throw in deliberate practice) and I think we are possibly looking at human performance beyond elo 3000. Of course this also may mean, GMs are going to get younger and younger. Also think what this means for older chess players who want to improve: Personal trainers.
  

http://www.toutautre.blogspot.com/
A Year With Nessie ...... aka GM John Shaw's The King's Gambit (http://thekinggambit.blogspot.com.au/)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bonsai
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 622
Joined: 03/13/04
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #14 - 12/08/17 at 06:40:22
Post Tools
To some extent what these guys did was not even that optimized for chess (!). You would think it should be possible to do what they did in a more domain specific way and to add some other tweaks to make it even stronger (if nothing else train for longer, train vs. variants of itself and/or really good chess engines). I.e. as a statisticians with a little bit of involvment in machine learning, I suspect that one could train the neural net for longer in more sophisticated ways and get even better performance. I guess they also have not truly fully evaluated its strength in all areas of play. E.g. is there points being left on the table by sub-optimal endgame play, are there openings/pawn structures it does play as well as the rest (and then, how could one fix that, e.g. link in tablebases somehow, make it play lots of endgames or games in specific openening etc.)... Those things could theoretically be weaknesses, unless the program gets into these situation often enough during training.

I'm sure there's a lot of things one could try to achieve here. Perhaps you could also train flashy creative neural nets (perhaps seeding from Tal's games and giving a higher slightly higher score for a flashier game with sacrifices - however you judge that). You might even manage to get more human-like dumbed down AIs with certain personalities. And finally, to really get carried away into a lack of realism: we give a neural net a large database as the data, some opening positions & the matching Quality Chesss books as the training set and then give it a new opening position and hope it writes us a book.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 718
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #13 - 12/07/17 at 21:35:26
Post Tools
GabrielGale wrote on 12/07/17 at 20:21:04:
Two curious question for those with the expertise: Is this so-called deep neural net viable for the future AI?

Deep Learning is arguably the most successful current AI technique (it certainly has the most buzz within the larger field) and shows no sign of becoming obsolete soon. Who knows what will be prevalent in ten years, though.

Quote:
How does this compare to the modest effort of a single postgrad paper last year on similar undertaking (one with Giraffe in the title)?

The Giraffe author (Matthew Lai) joined DeepMind and is a coauthor of the AlphaZero paper. Smiley

Quote:
BTW, DM seems to think the current method of programming chess engine will become obsolete.

It's a little hard to claim that when current-tech engines are already much better than the strongest humans. Certainly programmers vying to create the world's strongest engine will be pretty interested in these techniques, though. When the first AlphaGo paper came out, the best other Go programs jumped hundreds of Elo effectively overnight by copying AlphaGo's ideas, but I think that will be much harder to do in the domain of chess.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GabrielGale
Senior Member
****
Offline


Who was Thursday?

Posts: 466
Location: Sydney
Joined: 02/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #12 - 12/07/17 at 20:21:04
Post Tools
Chessbase has a report but I think Chess24 was one of the first ones to report. Their report seems to suggest Stockfish was not too disadvantaged except perhaps in opening books. Caveat: I have yet to read the academic paper. In modern computer chess, opening book is important but bear in mind that int he TCEC, the first two rounds, the openings are fixed by an independent 3P and the contestants have to play form a certain position 4 moves deep.
Dana Mackenzie also has a report and he has some interesting thoughts on the (in)famous Table 2 (my prediction on it future fame). He seems to have read the academic paper and being a professional mathematician, will probably understand more than me. There is no explanation as why AlphaGZ gave up on Caro Kann or the French nor why it seemed to have avoided the Indian Defences or the Sicilian. It seems the QGB was favoured (again without any explanation but good news for the sale of recently published book from QC Smiley). Indeed, one of DM's comment was that the computer programmes are yet unable to articulate "why" which he thinks is crucially a human skill and therefore, ergo, AI is not human yet! (caveat: Also at the same time publicising his later co-authored book on Causation and effect!!).
Personally, I am impressed and think this is an important step.
Two curious question for those with the expertise: Is this so-called deep neural net viable for the future AI?
How does this compare to the modest effort of a single postgrad paper last year on similar undertaking (one with Giraffe in the title)?
BTW, DM seems to think the current method of programming chess engine will become obsolete.
  

http://www.toutautre.blogspot.com/
A Year With Nessie ...... aka GM John Shaw's The King's Gambit (http://thekinggambit.blogspot.com.au/)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gewgaw
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 656
Location: europe
Joined: 09/09/04
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #11 - 12/07/17 at 19:57:54
Post Tools
Very interesting link;
page 19:

Program
AlphaZero Stockfish Elmo
Chess
80k 70,000k
Shogi Go 40k 16k
35,000k
  Table S4: shogi and Go.

Stockfish calculated 70 million position per seconds - should be enough.
Another observation: this algorithm isn't interested in indian positions and Sicilian defence and the stronger it gets, the more it dislikes the french and the Caro-Kann and prefers the Berlin.
  

The older, the better - over 2200 and still rising.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JEH
God Member
*****
Offline


"Football is like Chess,
only without the dice."

Posts: 1455
Location: Reading
Joined: 09/22/05
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #10 - 12/07/17 at 13:40:58
Post Tools
IsaVulpes wrote on 12/06/17 at 12:19:53:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01815.pdf if you want a more detailed explanation of .. everything


Thanks, very interesting, especially

"Finally, we analysed the chess knowledge discovered by AlphaZero. Table 2 analyses the
most common human openings (those played more than 100,000 times in an online database
of human chess games (1)). Each of these openings is independently discovered and played
frequently by AlphaZero during self-play training. When starting from each human opening,
AlphaZero convincingly defeated Stockfish, suggesting that it has indeed mastered a wide spectrum
of chess play."

and what it discovered  Shocked
  

Those who want to go by my perverse footsteps play such pawn structure with fuzzy atypical still strategic orientations

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, stuck in the middlegame with you
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
h4rl3k1n
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love Lurking On ChessPublishing!

Posts: 14
Joined: 09/05/16
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #9 - 12/07/17 at 10:39:09
Post Tools
Interestingly, the machine spends quite some time on overcoming the 2000-2200 threshold. It improved faster before this and faster after this. There seems to be some barrier indeed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1941
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #8 - 12/07/17 at 10:15:38
Post Tools
The training is the really computationally intensive bit with neural nets - fairly sure that actually running them once trained doesn't take anything too crazy.

I genuinely didn't think this approach would work quite so well in chess - the brute force search is awfully effective of course. It seems like chess is a bit more interesting than we'd thought Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 768
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #7 - 12/07/17 at 09:10:24
Post Tools
Discussion of hashes, opening books etc somewhat obscure the bigger point that even if their machine had only attained, say, ELO 2000 in this way, it would have been an immensely impressive demonstration.

The authors went for maximum publicity and maybe cut a few corners in doing so, but any way you want to slice it, this looks incredibly impressive.
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bonsai
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 622
Joined: 03/13/04
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #6 - 12/07/17 at 06:59:20
Post Tools
Pretty impressive, even if there seems to be a question of the fairness of the Stockfish comparison. I'm inclined to believe they are not making this up based on this being the DeepMind team, who did create AlphaGo in a similar, if slightly more domain specific, way. It would be fascinating whether it does very differently than current engines somewhere.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1736
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #5 - 12/07/17 at 03:53:48
Post Tools
bragesjo wrote on 12/06/17 at 19:42:25:
Interesting link. It appears that that match was not fare since Stockfish got way to low ram and Alpha Zero got the power of 2000 threads and Stockfish "only" got 64 threads, and way to low ram to run the threads, and timecontrol was only 1 minut per move and Stockfish got no table bases or opening books that is standard today.


My understanding is that it was trained on super-hardware and then played on something at least slightly more reasonable. In any case nodes/s is not a particularly great metric for judging this beast, as it was searching order of magnitudes less than SF despite the difficult to compare hardware. I don't know anything about the computer power of TPUs relative to CPUs, just that they excel in machine learning applications.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 832
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #4 - 12/07/17 at 01:31:51
Post Tools
bragesjo wrote on 12/06/17 at 19:42:25:
Stockfish got no table bases or opening books that is standard today.


The DeepMind program was essentially "playing as a human". In other words it had no resource to external assistance other than what it had learned for itself.

On the basis of the games so far published, it has replicated human opening theory and confirmed some assessments without suggesting anything dramatically new.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Offline


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1559
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #3 - 12/06/17 at 19:42:25
Post Tools
Interesting link. It appears that that match was not fare since Stockfish got way to low ram and Alpha Zero got the power of 2000 threads and Stockfish "only" got 64 threads, and way to low ram to run the threads, and timecontrol was only 1 minut per move and Stockfish got no table bases or opening books that is standard today.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
IsaVulpes
Senior Member
****
Offline


No.

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/09/07
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #2 - 12/06/17 at 17:10:42
Post Tools
https://chess24.com/en/read/news/deepmind-s-alphazero-crushes-chess here's a more detailed easier readable article on the topic. It used neither opening books nor tablebases, but just played games against itself until it was the best, reinventing the past centuries of opening theory on the way   Lips Sealed
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2091
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
Reply #1 - 12/06/17 at 13:59:14
Post Tools
I have no reason to disbelieve this. More remarkable stuff from Deepmind.

Demis Hassabis runs DeepMind. He knows his onions, and then some. Hugely influential chap considering the work he is doing.
Worth noting that Dharshan Kumaran, one of the listed equal co-authors is a chess GM, though he quit totally many years ago. Demis also a fair chess player.

(Disclaimer of sorts, I left UK years ago, but both old friends from junior days. Er, I think I owe Demis a pint actually).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IsaVulpes
Senior Member
****
Offline


No.

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/09/07
Stockfish dethroned (big time)?!
12/06/17 at 12:19:53
Post Tools
Disclaimer: Very unclear basis on everything right now!

According to its developers, AlphaZero (as far as I understand it, the updated version of AlphaGo, the Go program which beat a human elite player for the first time in history) learned chess "in 4 hours", then played a 100 game match with Stockfish 8, and scored +28-0=72 (including 3 wins with black)!

The time control was supposedly 1minute/move, with AZ pulling farther away from Stockfish the longer the timecontrol happened to be.
It uses a drastically different algorithm; rather than going through 70 million positions per second (Stockfish), it checks just 80 thousand, but uses its "deep neural network" to focus much more efficiently on more promising variations (plays like a human, so to speak).

If all of this is true, and it ever makes its way into human hands (currently its not exactly available, and very unclear how well it will fare if it eg were to use less than 64 cores), that would be big news indeed

https://lichess.org/study/EOddRjJ8 You can check out 10 sample games of the 100 game match here (G7+G8 are two of the three Black wins)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01815.pdf if you want a more detailed explanation of .. everything

Right now it looks a vague bit suspicious to me, as we have no independent party confirming anything, and the games seem a bit strange -
https://lichess.org/0LUhNlLB here for example is one of Stockfish's White losses, which the quick Lichess Analysis (also running Stockfish) evaluates as having 5 Inaccuracies + 1 Mistake & 15 ACPL; basically unheard of in elite Engine chess. That it may misevaluate the AlphaZero program if that is indeed stronger than itself I can understand, but I see little reason as to why Stockfish would criticize *its own* moves to that extend (to compare: Analysis of G94 in Houdini vs Stockfish from TCEC 2016 https://lichess.org/Fp9UmSGv)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo