←back to thread

365 points lawrenceyan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.231s | 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(3): >>41873666 #>>41873900 #>>41900388 #
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(4): >>41873753 #>>41874074 #>>41874713 #>>41877588 #
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(2): >>41874621 #>>41877589 #
1. Davidzheng ◴[] No.41877589[source]
Most TCEC starting positions are borderline lost