←back to thread

166 points lawrenceyan | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
joelthelion ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
solveit ◴[] No.41873731[source]
We really have no way to know this. But I would be very surprised if modern chess engines didn't regularly blunder into losing (from the perspective of a hypothetical 32-piece tablebase) positions, and very very surprised if modern chess engines perfectly converted tablebase-winning positions.
replies(3): >>41873753 #>>41874074 #>>41874713 #
1. janalsncm ◴[] No.41874074[source]
The fact that TCEC games aren’t all draws suggests that computers aren’t perfect. Stockfish loses to Leela sometimes for example.
replies(1): >>41874621 #
2. grumpopotamus ◴[] No.41874621[source]
Tcec games are deliberately played from imbalanced opening positions. The draw rate would be much higher for the top participants if this wasn't forced. However, I agree that engines are not perfect. I have heard this claim many times before a new engine came along that showed just how beatable the state of the art engines still were at the time.