The answer is that they either played it on some very handicapped mode, they took back A LOT of moves, or they are probably lying.
Stockfish 11 is currently rated about 3607, and that is in standard chess. Computer programs are typically even HARDER to beat for humans at even faster controls.
There is a reason elite humans have not played matches against ...
It's absolutely beatable, but not by an unassisted human. Anyone who claims to have done so is either lying or stacked the deck super heavily in their favor (e.g., by having Stockfish search only to depth 2). "Slow computer" isn't good enough - Stockfish 11 running on 1999 hardware would still have handily beaten Kasparov. You will need help from another ...
If you're trying to make the strongest engine possible, absolutely go for NN engines.
Traditional engines are great - Stockfish is arguably still the strongest engine on the planet on consensus equal hardware - but they are hard to write. These engines didn't get where they were overnight; they took years and years of work. Stockfish for example has been ...
I'm not an expert on quantum computation but my understanding is that quantum computers are not expected to be useful for chess.
Quantum algorithms are very good at finding needles in haystacks: the three big quantum algorithms are Shor's factorization algorithm, Grover's database lookup algorithm and the Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm, which essentially ...
Computers allowed the creation of endgame tables, which allow the user to know with 100% certainty if a position can be won, and how to do it. Currently all positions containing 7 or fewer pieces are 100% known. I am unaware of any opening line busted by computers.
Not that I know of, but computers do find answers to some hard questions. So while computers ...
I once wrote a program to make random moves, had it play 1000 games, and these were my results:
Outcome Count Avg. #moves
----------------------------- ----- -----------
Draw by insufficient material 500 179
Draw by fifty-move 157 208
Draw by threefold repetition 147 164
Black wins by ...
Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's decision was?
Not quite. As others have pointed out, Carlsen's decision was based on factors outside that one game. With a stronger position and a large time advantage, Carlsen most likely could have won game 12, but Caruana had just tied Carlsen in 11 consecutive games, several of which ...
That's why I wonder whether there have been any attempts made to
provide comparable hardware to both.
This is Google you're talking about! So the answer is obviously "No".
From the original paper hardware used for initialising and training -
Training proceeded for 700,000 steps (mini-batches of size 4,096)
starting from randomly initialised ...
Yes, I think so.
You'd have all possible board positions as states (so lots of states, but finite).
The starting position as an initial state. Legal moves as links between the states (so the "alphabet" would consist of all possible moves). Positions that end the game like checkmate, stalemate and dead positions as accepting states.
In the end you'd get ...
When moves are randomized, is there an inherent advantage to the player who goes first, or the player who goes second?
The first player has a slight advantage. When black has made n moves, then white has made n+1 when completing his turn. Even if black can mate on his n+1-th move black still loses.
EDIT My analysis was too simple, but I got lucky.
It's definitely possible there are strategies we don't know about. However, training your engine to specifically play contrary to all we know isn't the way to get there. For example, what would you do if one of your pieces were threatened? Our current knowledge says to not give it up for no reason, so would your AI therefore decide to give it up (because it'...
Is the tournament leading to some consensus on how good/bad Carlsen's
No. Consensus on Carlsen's play and decision has already been reached, I would suggest.
Psychologically Carlsen made it clear in the post match interview that his goal before this game was a draw to reach the rapid playoff where he thought (correctly) that he was strong ...
Finite state machines can be described as the recognizers of regular languages. You could perhaps identify chess with the set of all possible game records. For example f3e5g4Qh4# (the fool's mate) is one of the shorter strings in this language. Since this language has a finite alphabet and all words have bounded length (with the upper bound somewhere in the ...
This depends on a lot of things, but most importantly: your playing level and the topic.
For example, if it is an opening book, it heavily depends on the opening. Some opening variations which are main stream today, didn't even exist in the seventies, or were rarely used (like the Berlin Wall in Ruy Lopez). Others haven't seen that much development (QGD, ...
Anand is absolutely right. Computers have revolutionized the way we play chess, think about chess and prepare.
Tony Ennis mentions tablebases. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Computers have infiltrated almost every aspect of the game. The only place they're banned is when we sit down to play over the board (and perhaps on some online platforms).
For what it's worth, here are the rates of decisive games of the TCEC seasons 4 'til 8 superfinals. Season 4 is a bit of an outlier (maybe a rule change?), but after that the percentage of decisive games drops consistently.
Season 4: 10/48 = 20%
Season 5: 18/48 = 37%
Season 6: 19/64 = 30%
Season 7: 11/64 = 17%
Season 8: 11/100 = 11%
Arguably at an ...
IBM claimed the machine could search for 200 million moves per second, while Stockfish in the recent AlphaZero match could "only" search for 80 million per seconds on a modern multi-core machines. But... it was unclear how exactly IBM derived the number. There's no universe definition on how an engine calculates number of moves per second. How it's done is ...
In the beginning years of computer chess, people have actually tried to teach computers chess in the same way as they do with humans, explaining strategic concepts like a healthy pawn structure or the initiative. These attempt were soon abandoned because the method you describe was much more successful.
Recently, there has been another attempt to let an ...
Well, it is a small sample, but assuming that there are a lot more games like these, I think it could be the following things.
First, I am not sure when we first humans first decided that space was an advantage, but for as long as I have been playing, it has been a known factor. Both of these openings cede space compared to double-king-pawn openings and ...
Longest known checkmate is in 549 moves, revealed by Lomonosov Tablebases.
You can see the game here.
Plus, you don't need to say "endgame" explicitly. Longest checkmates come from endgame tablebases already. And it's not possible to build a middlegame tablebase practically, because of the exponential space complexity. Let's say there is a middlegame ...
I think it's best if I elaborate on your second point with an example move in the game 1 between AlphaZero and Stockfish which also served to satisfy my curiosity today.
the time limit of 1 min/move (How would this disadvantage Stockfish?)
Stockfish's performance is dependent upon both the time limit and the hardware configuration, so just think of when ...
When a "total newbie" achieves such an overwhelming position against a computer, it most probably means that the computer was forced to make a "sub-optimal" move from time to time - to give the player a chance to win the game. The problem is that the computer has no clue what is a "reasonable" mistake from a human point of view.
You can do this via Lichess:
Visit lichess and optionally create an account if you haven't done so.
Click Play with the computer.
Select "From Position" in the Variant field.
Insert the position FEN you want to play with the computer.
Choose a time control.
Choose the computer level. See this discussion for more info on what those mean.
Select a ...
This exact bot has already been created. On lichess, it is simpleEval. You could potentially use it to debug a lot of your issues by seeing what this engine does against you in a given position.
Having played this bot several times, no that move Nxf2 would probably be incorrect. This seems like a bug on your end. Assuming you have enough depth in the bot's ...
has information on exactly what you want. They are self-playing tests for improving the Stockfish code base.
The draw rate is roughly about 60% - 70%. There're lots of wins and losses. I believe white has more wins but it's not shown on the page.
Chess engines aren't perfect, they do make mistakes. If SF makes a bad ...
may the game of chess be considered a finite state machine?
Yes; this is a good insight.
A FSM is an abstract model of computation with the following characteristics:
The machine begins in a known "start state"
The machine accepts a sequence of inputs
Each input is interpreted in the context of the current state
Each input causes an update to the current ...
First step: Define your goals/reasons
I think this is the predominant factor. Which of these best fits you? (Choose only one)
You want to enjoy a fun, challenging coding task
You want to create an extremely good chess engine
You want to learn about how chess engines work
You want to learn/practice coding skills
You want to learn/implement computer science ...
Because of the enormous skill difference between these computers and humans, any kind of analysis will inevitably be post-hoc. We can tell ourselves stories about how "Stockfish should have [insert plan]," (and I'm sure some people here will) but ultimately I think that any story we could come up with would be flawed at the level of Leela/Stockfish. This isn'...
Generally speaking, Leela tends to have a better "intuition" and Stockfish is very good at brute force calculations. So in a structure like the French/Caro-Kann, where calculation becomes less important and strategy becomes more important, Leela will tend to do better.