AlphaZero has defeated Stockfish with all novelties and brilliant strategic sacrifices. But some people were disputing its win, because Stockfish was running on weak hardware (1 GB RAM), not access to opening book, not having free time control, maybe not have endgame table base, etc.
This setting by DeepMind is understandable from a scientific perspective though. It is to test intuitive/strategic play by deep learning technique vs. counting/tactical play by brute force search. However, this leaves chess lovers with many questions like what is the true strength of AlphaZero? What is the true advantage of strategic/positional sacrifice play? Were Morphy, Tal, and others correct and Stockfish wrong? Or full version Stockfish is still the best?
One work around is to replicate the Stockfish version that played AlphaZero, to see how strong it is compared to the full version and other engine and human. Thus we could infer the Elo rating of AlphaZero and answer most questions.
So, did anyone test it? Is anyone interested in testing it? Maybe Stockfish developers, because Stockfish's pride is at stake? Or is there other way to approach the problem?
- Note that Stockfish had good 64 threads CPU and could evaluate 70 million positions/second.
- The Stockfish Elo rating provided in the paper is the full version, thus this replication is needed.
- The paper.