←back to thread

365 points lawrenceyan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
hlfshell ◴[] No.41873501[source]
I did a talk about this! (And also wrote up about my talk here[1]). This paper is a great example of both knowledge distillation. It's less of a paper about chess and more about how complicated non linear search functions - complete with whatever tuning experts can prepare - can be distilled into a (quasi-linear, if it's a standardized input like chess) transformer model.

[1]: https://hlfshell.ai/posts/deepmind-grandmaster-chess-without...

replies(1): >>41874003 #
janalsncm ◴[] No.41874003[source]
I think the vs. humans result should be taken with a huge grain of salt. These are blitz games, and their engine’s elo was far higher against humans than against other bots. So it’s likely that time was a factor, where humans are likely to flag (run out of time) or blunder in low time situations.

It’s still very cool that they could learn a very good eval function that doesn’t require search. I would’ve liked the authors to throw out the games where the Stockfish fallback kicked in though. Even for a human, mate in 2 vs mate in 10 is the difference between a win and a draw/loss on time.

I also would’ve liked to see a head to head with limited search depth Stockfish. That would tell us approximately how much of the search tree their eval function distilled.

replies(1): >>41874038 #
hlfshell ◴[] No.41874038[source]
The reason the time (blitz) games make sense is because the distilled functionality is of a 50ms Stockfish eval function. The engine likely would perform worse as only the human would benefit from the additional time.

As for limited search tree I like the idea! I think it's tough to measure, since the time it takes to perform search across various depths vary wildly based on the complexity of the position. I feel like you would have to compile a dataset of specific positions identified to require significant depth of search to find a "good" move.

replies(2): >>41874149 #>>41878299 #
1. codeflo ◴[] No.41878299[source]
But the headline is “GM-level performance without search”, not “computer beats human at mouse movement speed contest”.