|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-03-18 | | Big Pawn: < saffuna: < It's cute to see the cowards join forces to take a stand against the <BIG BULLY PAWN>!> How many of you have joined forces to take a stand against me on that other page? Goose. Gander.>
None.
But on this page, I have <CHC> shaking in his boots, looking to crawl under a blanket fort with <moron>, desperate to escape penetrating presence. <CHC> needs to go to my profile, scroll down to the bottom and hit the <Intolerance button>, as a good liberal should. For the record, I have no one on ignore and have not used the <INTOLERANCE> button, because I don't get angry when people disagree. I'm very tolerant. |
|
| Apr-03-18 | | pdxjjb: <ChessHigherCat> Back on the machine learning thing, I don't think the truth is quite as optimistic as the way you played it back. In practice, the machine won't just continue to improve, and in some cases it will get worse if you overtrain it (search the term "overfitting" if you would like to read more). Also, time is usually not an issue. Unlike living things, these system usually don't continue to learn; rather, they have a training phase which is exclusively training, and then once put into use no further "training" or "learning" occurs. The compute cost of training is very high, while the cost use ("inference") is much lower. Bottom line, figuring out when to stop training is part of the art, and more isn't necessarily better. |
|
| Apr-03-18 | | ChessHigherCat: <pdxjib> I don't know any of the programming details but at least the results were pretty amazing. That said, I'm generally anything but optimistic when it comes to computers achieving anything beyond calculations. In the early days of computing they predicted that they would soon become champion at checkers (which took over 25 years after the date of the quote I believe) and come up with a great translation program. The fact that machine translations are still so horrible despite the immense computing power shows that machines have no approach to examining the context to choose which of the many dictionary definitions is applicable to a specific word or phrase in context. They can't even analyze the context in the surrounding sentences much less remember the relevant passages in previous chapters that would have to be analyzed to choose the correct meaning. And that's just the general meaning, it goes without saying that they lack the necessary sense of irony and humor needed to do a translation with the proper tone, not to mention an understanding of symbolism or register. I think the day that computers can do a good literary translation will be the day that they can think like humans, and I'm starting to agree with Steven Pinker that that day will never come. |
|
| Apr-04-18 | | WorstPlayerEver: It would probably continue learning if it were made by a decently developed species lol |
|
| Apr-04-18 | | ChessHigherCat: <WorstPlayerEver: It would probably continue learning if it were made by a decently developed species lol> But humans are the only decently developed species! Outside of mankind, all the creatures have developed quite indecently and traipse around in public without any underwear! |
|
| Apr-04-18 | | FairyPromotion: <21. Bg5!!> is one of the greatest and the most aesthetic moves I've ever seen. The move is inexplicable to me, and I feel that defensive tries <21...hxg5> and <22...hxg5> need further analysis. The slow conversion detracts a bit from the beauty of the game, but the position after <32.Qd5> seems like a resignable one for master level. Funny to think that resigning is one of the very few things that we humans are still better at than these engines. All in all, this one was my favorite game from this match, and it should definitely be featured as GotD in the future. GotD: <Zero Tolerance> |
|
| Apr-04-18 | | devere: <this one was my favorite game from this match> It wasn't a match, since Google controlled both "contestants" and manipulated them to obtain the desired result. |
|
| Apr-04-18 | | WorstPlayerEver: I assume it all comes down to the following position, after: 21. Bg5 hxg5 22. Nxg5 Qg8 23. Qh4 Nc5 24. h6 Bd3 25. b4 Nba6 26. bxc5 Nxc5 27. Re7 Rae8 28. Nxf7+ Rxf7 29. hxg7+ Kxg7 30. Qg5+ Bg6 31. Qe5+ Kh7 32. Rxe8 Qg7 33. Qxg7+ Kxg7 34. Ra8 a5 35. Re1 Rf8 
click for larger view |
|
| Apr-04-18 | | hashtag: α0_FakeGame |
|
| Apr-04-18 | | morfishine: <hashtag: α0_FakeGame> Thank you for the FakeNews |
|
| Apr-04-18 | | diceman: <devere: <this one was my favorite game from this match> It wasn't a match, since Google controlled both "contestants" and manipulated them to obtain the desired result.> It may be true Google controlled both
"contestants." However, the unique style of Alpha-Zero is still noticeable. |
|
| Apr-16-18 | | talwnbe4: CHC you're flip flopping between minimizing the suffering as you say and so on.. btw, I recognize your line from the Bhagavad-Gita. You seem surprised by the comments here, as if you weren't already expecting them ? :-) |
|
| Apr-16-18 | | ChessHigherCat: I didn't intentionally quote the Bhagavad-Gita but I've read it a lot and no doubt have some flip-flotsam and jot-jetsam floating around my psyche, including some verses in Sanskrit. I've put the Sanskrit grammar aside in favor of Ancient Greek over the past couple months (If you wonder why I'm interested in "dead" languages, it's because I'd rather read interesting ancients than waste time trying to communicate with boring contemporaries). |
|
| Apr-16-18 | | Big Pawn: <chc: I've put the Sanskrit grammar aside in favor of Ancient Greek over the past couple months (If you wonder why I'm interested in "dead" languages, it's because I'd rather read interesting ancients than waste time trying to communicate with boring contemporaries).> How cultured!
How well-traveled!
How sophisticated!
Oh my!
What a genius! |
|
| Apr-16-18 | | ChessHigherCat: Case in point. |
|
| Apr-18-18 | | talwnbe4: Well.. the Bible (here King James version) and the Bhagavad-Gita are pretty similar on this point, i.e..
Jude 1:19
"
These be they that separate themselves, sensual, having not the spirit." |
|
| Apr-20-18 | | talwnbe4: ..of course language is somewhat useless unless one understands the words. Take the word "sense" and even worse (better? )the english word "draw", "draw" has a large number of meanings and of course languages change over time, from spelling to morphology (inflection) to meaning, at any given moment - a word might have a number of meanings to any person, let alone many persons. |
|
| Apr-22-18 | | talwnbe4: CHC, as to computers achieving results, then this is perhaps more to your liking ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjA... |
|
| May-22-18 | | bobbyperezchess: I don't like the move Stockfish played on its 11th move which is 11...Bf6?!, since it denies control of the weak square d6, which AlphaZero immediately conquers with 12.Nd6! . But still, Van Arkel played this positional error in his game against Roobol. Roobol played 12.Re1!? which is quite okay and still gives white the advantage, but not as strong as AlphaZero's 12.Nd6! . The move played by Stockfish is what most chess players with positional knowledge and understanding will not commit. I prefer 11...d5, though the pawn will be regained quickly with 12.exd5 cxd5 13.Re1!? Re8 14.Nc3 e.g, 14...Nba6 15.Nxe7 Rxe7 16.Rxe7 Qxe7 17.Nxd5 and if 17...Qd8?, 18.Nf6+ Qxf6 (18...gxf6?! 19.Qg4 Kh8 20.Bxb7 ± and white wins the bishop pair while black, with two knights against white's two bishops and a bad kingside structure, obtained a nightmare position and irreparable damage) 19.Qf3! Qe7 (black cannot be as worthy as white after 19...Qxf3 20.Bxf3 ±) 20.Be3 Nb4!? (20...Nc5 21. Bxc5 ± looks good for black, as black has exchanged one of its knights to white's bishop, but could black afford the irreparable structural damage to its pawns?) 21.Rd1 ± with a nice advantage. But we are humans, and we are not (and never) computers. |
|
| Jun-17-18 | | ThirdPawn: This probably can be considered as the Game of the Century. Not only did Stockfish not see 21.Bg5!!!, but also failed to see 20.Qg4! Of course, I saw it, but then I saw the f5 fork and stayed away. I guess that is what separates humans from machines now. In the end, Stockfish must be complimented on lasting another 100 moves as no GM would have lasted 20 more. |
|
| Mar-30-19 | | rcs784: I just discovered something sensational about this game that nobody seems to have noticed yet: Both AlphaZero's stunning sacrifice of the second pawn with 14. e5 (played in at least one of the other published games as well) and subsequent plan of attack were anticipated in a human game, 6 years earlier, between two German players (sadly not in CG.com's database!): Karl-Heinz Podzielny (2408) vs. Hans Georg Emunds (2179), 2011: 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 b6 3. g3 Bb7 4. Bg2 e 6 5. O-O Be7 6. c4 O-O 7. d5 exd5 8. Nh4 c6 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Nf5 Bf6 11. e4 Ne7 12. Nd6 Ba6 13. Re1 Nc8 14. e5 Nxd6 15. exf6 Qxf6 
click for larger viewThis is exactly the same position as after move 15 in the AlphaZero game, but the moves played to reach it were slightly different (different move order, but also Black's knight went d5-e7-c8-d6 instead of Stockfish's d5-c7-e8-d6)--probably the main reason this game seems to have escaped notice so far. But White's idea is exactly the same as AlphaZero's, and his follow-up is remarkably similar as well: 16. Nc3 Bc4 17. Bf4 Nf5 18. Ne4 Qg6 19. h4 h6 20. h5 Qh7 21. Qg4 Kh8 
click for larger viewThis is not quite the same position as that reached after move 20 in AlphaZero-Stockfish (in particular, Black's knight is placed much more actively on f5 instead of b7), but it's similar enough for serious comparison. I'm not sure if Black's knight on f5 is actually a help or a hindrance, though, given that Stockfish responded to AlphaZero's stunning 21. Bg5 sacrifice was 21...f5. Stockfish seems to have always put the knight on b7 instead of the seemingly superior f5, so perhaps Bg5 is a strong move here too. If it was, Podzielny certainly didn't find it (I don't certainly blame him, though; I think a lot of strong GMs probably wouldn't find Bg5 over the board), and the game finished as follows: 22. Nd6 Be6 23. Qe2 Nxd6 24. Bxd6 Rc8 25. b4 a5 26. b5 a4 27. Be4 Bf5 28. Qf3 Bxe4 29. Rxe4 cxb5 30. Rae1 Nc6 31. Qxf7 Qg8 32. Qxd7 Qd5 33. Re6 Rd8 34. Re8+ Rxe8 35. Rxe8+ Rxe8 36. Qxe8+ Kh7 37. Bf4 b4 38. Qg6+ Kh8 39. Qe8+ Kh7 40. Qg6+ Kh8 1/2-1/2 White is an IM; I'm not sure about Black's title or if he had one. Chessbase's database, where I found this game, doesn't have very good information about the tournament circumstances, but both players were over 50 years old at the time, which leads me to think the game may have been played in a German senior open or similar event. Chessbase has no record of any other human playing this double pawn sacrifice before or since, other than one game from 2018 in which Russian IM Dmitri Saulin, (undoubtedly inspired by AlphaZero) tried it against a lower-rated player but went wrong and lost. But 6 years before AlphaZero, Karl-Heinz Podzielny anticipated not just the initial sacrifice but AlphaZero's entire follow-up prior to the piece sac. The fact that AlphaZero, with no pre-packaged opening book or database of human games, replicated Podzielny's play almost move for move only serves as a further testament to the genius and essential soundness of the whole variation. Not bad for a "lowly" IM. |
|
Apr-12-19
 | | OhioChessFan: Hashtag Caissars |
|
| Apr-12-19 | | scholes: Maybe that was correspondence game |
|
Apr-12-19
 | | PawnSac: < ChessHigherCat: But humans are the only decently developed species! Outside of mankind, all the creatures have developed quite indecently and traipse around in public without any underwear! > classic CHC! lmao |
|
Apr-12-19
| | PawnSac: < ChessHigherCat: (If you wonder why I'm interested in "dead" languages, it's because I'd rather read interesting ancients than waste time trying to communicate with boring contemporaries). > another kudos.. hehe. So what Greek lit are u reading? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 24.Qd6