←back to thread

Grandmaster-level chess without search

(github.com)
166 points lawrenceyan | 3 comments | 17 Oct 24 19:13 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
joelthelion ◴[17 Oct 24 20:42 UTC] No.41873554[source]▶
I wonder if you could creatively combine this model with search algorithms to advance the state of the art in computer chess? I wouldn't be surprised to see such a bot pop up on tcec in a couple years.
replies(2): >>41873666 #>>41873900 #
alfalfasprout ◴[17 Oct 24 20:52 UTC] No.41873666[source]▶
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.
replies(5): >>41873728 #>>41873731 #>>41873743 #>>41873853 #>>41873911 #
1. KK7NIL ◴[17 Oct 24 20:59 UTC] No.41873728[source]▶
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).

replies(1): >>41873849 #
2. GaggiX ◴[17 Oct 24 21:12 UTC] No.41873849[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>41874064 #
3. KK7NIL ◴[17 Oct 24 21:35 UTC] No.41874064[source]▶
In classical controls (what TCEC mainly uses), yes. They can play pretty exciting bullet chess without a forced opening though.