←back to thread

695 points crescit_eundo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
niobe ◴[] No.42142885[source]
I don't understand why educated people expect that an LLM would be able to play chess at a decent level.

It has no idea about the quality of it's data. "Act like x" prompts are no substitute for actual reasoning and deterministic computation which clearly chess requires.

replies(20): >>42142963 #>>42143021 #>>42143024 #>>42143060 #>>42143136 #>>42143208 #>>42143253 #>>42143349 #>>42143949 #>>42144041 #>>42144146 #>>42144448 #>>42144487 #>>42144490 #>>42144558 #>>42144621 #>>42145171 #>>42145383 #>>42146513 #>>42147230 #
computerex ◴[] No.42142963[source]
Question here is why gpt-3.5-instruct can then beat stockfish.
replies(4): >>42142975 #>>42143081 #>>42143181 #>>42143889 #
lukan ◴[] No.42143181[source]
Cheating (using a internal chess engine) would be the obvious reason to me.
replies(2): >>42143214 #>>42165535 #
1. nske ◴[] No.42165535[source]
But in that case there shouldn't be any invalid moves, ever. Another tester found gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct to be suggesting at least one illegal move in 16% of the games (source: https://blog.mathieuacher.com/GPTsChessEloRatingLegalMoves/ )