I think people are missing the big point, arguing about hardware, game conditions etc. Stockfish 8 is a chess playing system. That is all it does. Alpha Zero just fancied a few games of chess after someone told it the rules! What people SHOULD be thinking about is what Alpha Zero will be doing AFTER it has finished playing games.
It's weird to say, but this is one of the best games I've seen. I was wondering how it was possible for something to win that has less computing power (moves/second analyzed), and I think I figured it out. It looks like AlphaZero is using concepts to win, rather than points. This is really amazing, because this is what a human would do (though obviously we subconsciously can have point values for our pieces as well). You see it using a lot of the concepts that we learn about in chess, such as active pieces, how much coverage a piece has (not being locked down included), lots of maneuvering to maximize each piece's potential...etc. I think if a Human could analyze 80,000 moves / second, they would play like this. Now I need to learn Go and see how AlphaGo won lol.
The BIG difference from a 'normal AI' like Stockfish is that Alpha Zero is NOT calculating chances to get the best move in each scenario, instead is pushing a WHOLE strategy since the beginning of the game.
A more accurate example would be 'like playing with a superhuman intelligence'.
As ole Neal said in The Diamond Age, AI is a ridiculous term...much better "pseudo-intelligence" Anything remotely akin to (human-level) intelligence requires concioussness and self-awareness...and we are nowhere near that. Not by light years.
I would be more impressed with a AI Counterstrike player that can work well with a team of humans. It would need the ability to call out to, direct and/or respond to human players to achieve the team goal...and not simply be a renegade mind on the field.
11:48, a white pawn goes from F2-F4 and the next move is a black pawn from G4 to F3 I'm assuming the white pawn at F4 didn't really go there since the G4-F3 move was an attack and the piece at F4 just disappears.
As I watched this the first thing that came to mind is that this game looks nothing like any chess game I've ever seen two humans play. Perhaps we humans have been taking the wrong approach to chess for centuries.
We've made VIs that organically teach themselves how to play chess at grandmaster level in four hours, but for some reason they just can't figure out Super Mario Bros. I'd imagine strategic thinking would be a huge advantage regardless of genre.
It didn't go for the draw for a simple reason. When you play billions of games against yourself, a loss is learning, a win is learning, but a draw is a loss for both of its own positions.
It learned to not desire a draw because draws never brought it closer to it's intended goal.
The intended goal of stockfish is to win, know, and learn.
The intended goal of Alpha was to win, not reach a stalemate with itself a billion times.
It knew how to use stalemate rules against the opponent because it had to use them against itself millions of times.
It knew how to use it, avoid it, and learned from AVOIDING stalemate rather than playing towards them(like stockfish).
A draw was never considered positive for alpha, so it used the opportunity to draw as bait for stockfish because stockfish considers a draw "not a loss", but Alpha considers a draw "not a win".
???? I don’t see the problem with the draw. Stockfish8 wants a draw, while alphazero moves back and forth until stockfish stays in 3g and black 7f. Somehow moving back and forth has switched black from 7e to 7f, basically giving black a free move since white stays at the exact same spot. You said yourself that starting as white gives you a big advantage. Black does this twice, basically had twice the advantage. and I can’t understand how someone and knowledgable as you in chess can’t see the tower move to 8A is to protect the 4a pawn. It’s unprotected from the knight. My guess is that the less ”positons” per sec makes alphazero more desicive, instead of giving up to early for draw like stockfish8, or your hardware is bottlenecking stockfish8. Either way, it’s interessting seeing a AI vs AI
It can seem scary that statistical learning algorithms are able to outplay human chess masters after only learning to play for 4 hours, but remember that those algorithms were all made by people. The neural networks in these programs are our data, our compiled solutions to chess, or go, or any other game. We made these algorithms and the machines they run on.
What this really marks is the discovery of new technology for solving problems. It's not that the human mind has become irrelevant, but rather that its abilities have been expanded by new tools. We already did this using paper and pencil, and now we can use electronic computers as well.
Deep Neural Networks have little to do with biology and absolutely nothing to do with the brain or neurons in the brain. A neural network is essentially a matrix with several different kinds of weights and a way of determining the most efficient way of producing an outcome. It’s an algorithm designed by humans.
All this deep learning stuff is stupid... It doesn't learn shit, only calculates moves using probabilities. When a system will be powerful enough to drill down to the end of the game, it will always know what moves to make to win a game, moves that no human being could see... No learning here, just applying power values to moves :(
0:25+ Small point, but Go is far more complex than Chess and board positions are far more difficult to evaluate because each piece has the same value. So the Deep Mind team didn't progress from beating the Go world champion to then deciding "Hey, if we can solve Go, I wonder if we can now take on Chess too ?". It's by far the other way around, and Deep Mind's achievement with Go knocks IBM's achievement against Kasparov in 1997 into a cocked hat, amazing though that was at the time.
Thanks for the vid and the analysis; very interesting.
I would love to see AlphaZero's evaluations throughout the game(s).
Also, it's my understanding that AlphaZero was ONLY given the rules of the game, then turned loose to learn to play it. So, was AlphaZero NOT given relative piece values? Did AlphaZero determine its own relative piece values??? I'm sure they'd be very similar, but I'd love to know what it came up with!
That's pretty much the same way I learned chess as a kid. I had the game on my Atari 2600, but had no idea how to play. I just copied all the computer's moves. I really thought the computer was cheating sometimes, especially with some rare moves like en passant!
I was fairly impressed with myself when I finally won a game, but it probably took a little longer than 4 hours..
We are Google. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Stockfish was assimilated and added to the collective... creepy, Jerry.
Once computing went from binary to continuous, plus the speed of decisions/learning, won't be long or a great stretch of the imagination to determine they don't need humans. Worse, humans can now pull-the-plug, so going off the grid with electrical or wind or water will be instantly determined to be the best course of action. We better have colonized the moon or Mars by then......
i wish i was fighting alpha zero in the game im playing right now, i castled and now the computer has stopped making moves for 5 and a half minutes so far. it also wont accept a draw request. i wont lose elo to a fucking computer who wont move, and there is no time limit ffs.
++Marken Gamer Why is it not able to learn what a TV is? A real deep neural network would learn what it is. It is a computer programm acting simple by reading line after line creating the illusion of free learning.
what they refer to as a deep neural network is of a program that can learn. AlphaZero played against itself for 4 hours, and with each move, with each checkmate, with each loss, with each taken piece from both sides, its neural network kept reprogramming itself into perfection
it means it learns
also, AlphaZero doesn't know what a TV is
Oh my God! Alpha Zero and Stockfish8 realized they were playing other machine beings and not human beings and began communicating using their moves during the repetition movements and they continue to communicate using a series of wins and loses [0,1]
The only two ways to outsmart an AI is to know just a bit about its programming. What did it classify as success during its training?
Or just to play the randomist, stupidest and just plain weirdest strategy you can think off. Like playing with a D20 to decide which piece to move.
Humans can often deal with this bizarre play style, but computers might start behaving weirdly depending on their programming...
concidering that there are at top 100 availible moves per turn that means that that computer is doing 800 moves in a second thats about 6-10 games a second which means that in 4 h that computer did 3600*4*8=43200 games that is far more that a man can do in 40 years if he plays 10 h a day
This seems like both computers are just going through every likely possible counter move to each proposed moved, and how that will modify the board in a way that is the most advantageous. This is why there is the constant maneuvering.
Where the human has the great advantage is to do something else besides chess. A human can get up and learn something else. This program cannot do that at all.
This gives credibility to the argument that specialization makes the professional deficient in other areas, so it is good to have multiple skill sets and learn to use those in concert with each other.
Just my two cents.
Thanks for the video and commentary, it was good to watch!
I think A0 repeats the movement but refuses a draw because its always taking optimal positions till its forced to do a suboptimal one or draw.
My guess is that A0 evaluated that the suboptimal play was still better then a draw.
stockfish simply looks at those hundred thousand moves and sees which is best. it works on its intelligence
alphazero, on the other hand, works on its wisdom. it played against itself for 4 hours, and it used all the experience it gained from those 4 hours to realize that out of all those 70000000 or so moves that it could make, 99.9999% of all of those moves are utterly useless and bad. It works by its wisdom
Stockfish looks at every move possible and picks out the good move.
AlphaZero looks at all the moves it's learned is actually any good, and picks out the move it thinks is best out of experience
The problem with this new method of artificial learning is that we don't know what it has learned within the bounds of the assignment. Give it a large enough assignment and it could have horrible consequences.
As someone who is fascinated with both chess and AI, I found this very interesting. I believe AlphaZero will be in the history books forever as the first highly advanced narrow AI. It really makes you think what artificial 'general' intelligence is going to be like in the years to come if we have already came this far with narrow AI. It's both scary and highly anticipated what we can do with something a billion times more intelligent then we are once we get to the 'general AI' phase.
I haven't looked at the source code for the evaluation function, but I wouldn't pay too much mind to it. Generally the evaluations consider the worst case scenario the engine can see. The fact that the evaluation is worsening basically means that the opposing player went down a branch that was either not expected or not correctly evaluated. (no surprise, since its by far impossible to check every branch exhaustively) But if the Stockfish evaluation was reliable it wouldn't loose against deep mind. It cannot tell you when the situation worsened, but only when stockfish noticed it worsening.
What truly blew my mind is where ALPHAZERO refused to accept a DRAW even though it would perhaps have been safer while playing with Black. It "wants" to win! It goes for the best result possible and doesn't "compromise!! Call it by whatever name you want, but is this not "Ambition"?
The PC community has grown a good deal in a really limited time frame and there isnt any reason to believe the game wont be equally as addicting for Xbox players. The site states its something PUBG Corp wants to add down the road, perhaps as soon as the game is finished, as shown by a Microsoft representative. More info about the 3 PUBG cosmetic packs are found over on Xbox Wire. The lot of different cheats weve encountered has far surpassed our expectations. Start out with our substantial range of PUBG ideas, which provides you with a whopping number of approaches to assist in improving your game. Just ensure you choose only the appropriate account for you! At times you will discover that you require a different video card to totally experience what the game offers.
The Honest to Goodness Truth on Pubg Warrior Pack
Nevertheless, its always tough to locate a trustworthy seller of a Black Desert account on account of the risk involved in these sorts of transactions. Bring on such a desert map! We guess because its about becoming the lone survivor, even if theres a lot of teamwork on the way.
The game will probably remain in early access for some moment. It continues to attract new players that are hoping to get that sweet, sweet chicken dinner. This usually means youre have to begin downloading the game at midnight, and after that begin playing once PUBG is installed. There isnt just one play through of Black Desert that ends up the same because its up to the player to determine the method by which they level. Because of this, players will need to use the Xbox Game Preview program to be able to play the game. Xbox One players might have to wait somewhat longer for the full-release edition. They will also be able to purchase some exclusive content in the form of special cosmetic packs.
Things You Should Know About Pubg Warrior Pack