←back to thread

Grandmaster-level chess without search

(github.com)
365 points lawrenceyan | 3 comments | 17 Oct 24 19:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.616s | 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(3): >>41873666 #>>41873900 #>>41900388 #
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. primitivesuave ◴[17 Oct 24 21:19 UTC] No.41873911[source]▶
This is accurate for endgames only. In complicated positions, there is still room for improvement - the recent game of lc0 vs stockfish where lc0 forced a draw against an impending checkmate is a good example. There is currently no way for a chess engine searching a massive game tree can see how an innocuous pawn move enables a forced stalemate 40 moves down the line.
replies(1): >>41877605 #
2. Davidzheng ◴[18 Oct 24 09:09 UTC] No.41877605[source]▶
Honestly SF plays better in middle game positions on average I would guess. I think usually there's a bigger draw margin in middle games
replies(1): >>41884464 #
3. primitivesuave ◴[18 Oct 24 23:39 UTC] No.41884464[source]▶
I think you are correct as I recall there is a set of middle game chess puzzles where Stockfish outperformed the other chess engines by a wide margin - I can't find the link as it was years ago. Not sure how the state-of-the-art has progressed since then. But I do believe the "horizon effect" plays a role in whether an engine decides to forcibly draw a game, which afforded Stockfish + NNUE a distinct advantage (at least at the time).