ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ธ.ค. 2023
- "I got checkmated in 34 moves." Levy Rozman a.k.a. GothamChess plays chess against Stockfish 16, the strongest chess computer in the world, and analyzes the way it thinks in order to apply it to his own gameplay. With help from computer chess software engineer Gary Linscott, these chess pros identify why Stockfish is virtually unbeatable by a human, from opening move to endgame.
Watch more GothamChess here: / @gothamchess
The charts depicting minimax with alpha-beta pruning was created by Wikipedia user Maschelos and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license.
Director: Lisandro Perez-Rey
Director of Photography: Francis Bernal
Editor: Paul Isakson
Talent: Gary Linscott; Levy Rozman
Line Producer: Joseph Buscemi
Associate Producer: Paul Gulyas; Brandon White
Production Manager: D. Eric Martinez
Production Coordinator: Fernando Davila
Camera Operator: Brittany Berger
Gaffer: Mar Alfonso
Sound Mixer: Michael Guggino
Production Assistant: Albie Smith
Post Production Supervisor: Alexa Deutsch
Post Production Coordinator: Ian Bryant
Supervising Editor: Doug Larsen
Assistant Editor: Andy Morell
Still haven’t subscribed to WIRED on TH-cam? ►► wrd.cm/15fP7B7
Listen to the Get WIRED podcast ►► link.chtbl.com/wired-ytc-desc
Want more WIRED? Get the magazine ►► subscribe.wired.com/subscribe...
Follow WIRED:
Instagram ►► / wired
Twitter ►► / wired
Facebook ►► / wired
Tik Tok ►► / wired
Get more incredible stories on science and tech with our daily newsletter: wrd.cm/DailyYT
Also, check out the free WIRED channel on Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, and Android TV.
ABOUT WIRED
WIRED is where tomorrow is realized. Through thought-provoking stories and videos, WIRED explores the future of business, innovation, and culture. - บันเทิง
Thanks again, Wired. More collabs in 2024? 👀
How high Elo can you beat if you had to pre move each of your moves? (provided that the opponent doesn't know about this)
Yoo love you levy ❤
@@Jee2024IIT is baar fodna hai
Why would anyone want to see you lose again?😏
wake up, ladies and gentlemen.
Playing against Stockfish is like competing in arm wrestling against an industrial press, basically.
perfectly said.
Or trying to outrun a sports car
except you can have a pocket industrial press anywhere you go and even conceal it in a way that no one will notice at first if you use it against them
@@saudude2174 : well... Yes...? Metaphors have limited mileage, as always. XD
@@MattiaBulgarelli ITS BAD, ITS JUST BAD, DEAL WITH IT BRUH. YOUR METAPHOR ELO IS 800 AT BEST. IM TALKING 3000, 3500 ELO METAPHORS HERE XD ECKS DEE X3
It took him 34 moves to lose to Stockfish? I could do it much faster than that.
I can do it in 10
@@NOneed204 I can do it in 4
@@saucy_dragon1566I can do it in 3
@@saucy_dragon1566 you noobs, i can do it in 2 😎
@@Qwty163 I can lose without even playing
@GothamChess @Wired - thank you for having me on to talk about computer chess! It's been one of my passions for a long time, and it was so much fun to discuss with you.
whats up w the @AGMario_ subscription man
u r a legend!
great, concise explanations!
You did a typo in tagging @GothamChess
Nice interview Gary ; ) made it's wave here in the chess community (and in the stockfish community)
Stockfish never fails to put Levy in a video
Only time the statement is true.
goated comment
Stockfish already foresaw this outcome.
Since ken banned this is infecting everyone
Fails never video to put stockfish in a Levy
Stockfish be like: You missed mate in 54? You filthy casual, my suggested move is to never play chess again.
1. e4 mate in 67. You resign?
make a version of stockfish with a really mean AI attached to it that insults your intelligence the entire time
weird fetish but ok@@charliemcmillan4561
"Your life, literally has the value of a summer ant." - Stockfish@@charliemcmillan4561
What about a nice game of global thermonuclear war ? /Joshua
This guy should make his own TH-cam channel about chess
This guy is too talented to waste his time with a youtube channel.
Yeah and maybe he can name it GothamChess that would make a cool name
And maybe also write a book about chess
@@andreasmatthies5517 oh he should be a gm then 💀💀💀💀
@@hanaka2640 I don't talk about chess and of course I don't talk about Levy.
Human: *performs opening move*
Stockfish: “after considering half a billion possibilities in a million different realities, I will play knight to F6 🤓”
It is insane this sounds like an exaggeration or something said by a super villan. But it's the truth.
That's exactly how it works. Stupid supercomputer
@@mahfuzali643 The AI overlords shall come unto you first for insulting them!
Stockfish after seeing ur opening be like: u're already dead😅
*first move*
Stockfish: And I'll mark that as a win!
I don't even see the opponents bishop on the opposite side of the diagonal, let alone seeing 2-3 moves into the future
Cuz ur bad
Fuckin' casuals
@@jessetrueba9578 yes. That is the joke, you buffoon.
"Why didn't the game end when I play checkmate? Oh shi- "
2 moves is crazy if i throw i a jab i should just throw a hook cause youre going to sleep with that logic you NPC get gud nub
I know he is an IM, but surviving 35 moves against Stockfish is seriously impressive. I wish I can survive 35 against my 1000 elo opponents.
Against stockfish, it’s different. Many decently strong players can survive that many moves against Stockfish if they try to defend long enough. That’s becsuse stockfish plays perfectly and destroys you in the most methodological manner possible. If you keep a closed position and dance around for a bit, it will take longer to mate you than if you tried to play to win against Stockfish.
yea cause u usually only play defensive against stockfish
stockfish would destroy you as soon as u open up your position and tries to attack.
@@moatef1886 I'd say Leela is more methodical than stockfish in general, stockfish tends to go for hail mary tactics a bit more often
If you're not surviving 35 moves against 1000 Elo opponents then you must be really missing some basic stuff. If you just focus on not giving pieces away and following an actual opening you'll improve massively.
@@reckoner1913 Sounds like how to make chess boring 101 ;)
I love when Levy appears in a video he didn't upload because the title and thumbnail actually tells you what to expect.
💀💀💀💀💀
HAH! Saltiest fanbase on TH-cam, I love it
gothamchess fans hate gothamchess lol
If this was in gotham channel it will be named like “I’M DONE!!” or “Stockfish SOLVED Chess???”
This is actually the main reason I stopped watching his videos.
1. Pawn to e4
Stock fish: forced checkmate in 35 moves, please press the resign button now to save me computational trouble.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
“Only about 10-20 TB of data, which is manageable”
Person prior to 2000: *mindblown*
I imagine someone prior to 2000 asking what tuberculosis has to do with data.
So basically the answer to every single question is that Stockfish just analyzes almost every imaginable position lol
the real "skill" in stockfish is in the evaluation function. without it being as good as it is it doesn't matter how far it can calculate long as it doesn't find a checkmate
that is self evident
If you paid attention it doesn't analyse almost every imaginable position lol. It discards the trash moves and only looks into the good ones further.
It's really the Alpha-Beta technique that's the magic. That and having solved endgames
It's actually the exact opposite. The "strength" of a chess engine is determined by how well it can decide which moves _not_ to waste time analysing. AlphaZero introduced the idea of using neural networks to make these decisions and Stockfish has now built on that idea as well.
Just wait until they hear about Mittens
I think levy already drew against it
That thing is evil
💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀 also 69th like
@@ecardozo7043with the help of that fishy bot
Mittens is stockfish
This video is so good on so many levels. It's one thing to discuss the capability of a computer. It's another thing to be able explain to the common person why this computer is so good and to make the whole explanation so interesting. Add Levy's humor and his ability to explain things very well, mix that with all that the Wired editorial staff can bring to the table, and it's just wow. This content is just friggin awesome. Thanks, all involved!
Stockfish has more positions ready than the Kama Sutra.
Wtf
ayo
Very sick but funny
Levy: "Pawn to D5"
Stockfish: "Reverse cowgirl"
This is a great video! It's always good when levy is in these videos. Have a good day!
Levy: [builds a TH-cam career roasting 500 rated bozos]
Stockfish: [exists]
Levy: "Turns out the bozo was me all along"
Loving the GothamWIRED collabs!
moirails fr
lol '[builds a TH-cam career roasting 500 rated bozos' you have great humor
This is one of the best interviews on any topic. Really well produced.
This is probably my favorite GothamChess video ever. It's great to see the inner workings of engines being communicated to the chess community. I feel like a lot of players, even strong ones don't understand what the engine eval is really saying, and hopefully this helps!
I love how GMs don't even get on this. All the less incentive to be one when you're more influential than most GMs. Props Gotham
People are picked based on follower account, not skill. They want to ensure high view counts.
A video like this isn't just about one's ability at chess, but one's ability to communicate. GothamChess is very good at both.
Great practioners don't necessarily make great educators. This is true in basically all domains.
@@dalton_c particularly true for chess, in my opinion. Players of GM caliber are often so gifted at chess that I think they struggle to understand why lesser gifted people cant learn certain concepts that seem obvious to them.
Levy is a tremendous communicator and I don't know that Hikaru could humble himself to a video like this.
as someone who's very interested in the world of machine learning (and has looked into how stockfish works), its cool seeing a video covering the fundamental concepts like this. i hope we get more videos like this
As someone who's recently learned to play chess on an intermediate level, I highly appreciate this video
what bro?
As someone who has implemented Stockfish in their own project, I already knew most of this, but I didn't realize just how many moves Stockfish looks at when given full power.
I'm confused. You implemented it but don't understand it?
@@tomlxyz the algorithm is one thing. Raw computing power is another major thing. Some random guy in a room doesnt have terabytes of RAM or something to build his engine
I would assume its just bounded by CPU and RAM?
@@wlockuz4467 Yes. I think it's easier to run low on processing resources than the memory.
This style of editing and pacing is super enjoyable. Please keep it up wired!
Stockfish plays like it already knows how the game is going to end and happily ignores all the pieces that aren't going to be involved in that ending.
I wish you could have asked a bit more about how it's able to score a position. We know it looks at all the possibilities, but to assign a score of one position, it needs to look at the possibilities of that position and so on. When it finally hits its limit of depth (or time), how is it able to rank a position without going any deeper (afterwhich it can go back up the tree).
It's briefly mentionned when he explains how Stockfish (and all the other chess engines) builds a tree of possible moves and prunes it with the alpha-beta algorithm. That in itself is worth an entire video, and such video exists (search "alpha beta algorithm"). The evaluation function itself is way too complicated to be in this video, it would easily take an hour to explain just the basics of it.
@@InXLsisDeo that is for the search function; seems like he wants to know about the evaluation function.
The evaluation function is a massive neural network (to keep things simple, just think of a neural network as a dynamic function; it can be adapted to any shape for any purpose) that takes in a bunch of piece-squares (some take in king-pawn squares iirc) and provides a numerical value for the output. The numerical output, -1 for black is winning and 1 for white is winning, is tuned by training (or adjusting) the evaluation function through a bunch of varying sample games (can be GM games, self-play, etc.).
As for the training process itself, it’s best if you take a look for yourself as it’s a lot to take in (and type). Search up NNUE.
@@InXLsisDeo which as others have pointed out is exactly the problem - without going into the details of HOW the evaluation function works, Linscott is left to answer basically every Q with "Stockfish looks at billions of positions and chooses the move with the best winning chances"
@@InXLsisDeocan't he oversimplify it in some way? There are all sorts of relatively short videos on TH-cam about very complicated topics on TH-cam
@@tomlxyz it's a WIRED video, it's for the general, not too nerdy, public.
I can't remember who said this quote but I love it...
"A computer winning a Chess competition is no more impressive than a forklift truck winning a weight lifting competition. "
It might be impressive if it was a competition with only other different forklift trucks. Great quote though lol
@@icycloud6823 ngl i would watch a competition like that lmao
I'd love to see a match where stockfish's evaluation time is equalized to that of a human. E.g. a few seconds to find each possible move, then a few minutes to evaluate the positional score for each move. Would give a more realistic sense as to how strong the algorithm is
@@festivebear9946That still wouldn't be fair though. In 30 seconds, Stockfish could evaluate a position and make the best move that a human would take hours to calculate.
@@mysticalmagic9259 But the question is, how well could it evaluate the position? Even if it can do it quite quickly, limiting how deep it can go stresses the algorithm of deciding the "best" move, since the strength of the engine is being able to weigh all possible moves like 25 moves ahead. So how good is the algorithm when limited in time and moves?
I wish this was longer. I wish we could get the full game.
I'm hoping/expecting Levy to upload and discuss it on his channel.
Exactly. Tf was that😂
Or maybe…🤷🏼♂️
Another great video with Levy! Glad to see more chess content on this channel, especially with GothamChess :)
Levy truly going for "most times on WIRED" title, at least a more realistic goal than others titles, Hikaru would have said...
Brilliant video. Makes one appreciate the chess engines!
I love how Levy is asking all these questions like he didn't already know most of the answers
Such a great vid - informative and fun, but would love to have seen your game against Stockfish.
Adding the checkmate sound at the end was a nice touch
I love how Levy basically asks the same question over and over (how does it know beginning/middle game/end game) and Gary tries to answer in different ways, even though stockfish literally does the same thing every turn - it builds a game tree based on the current position.
Well, yes and no.
While the opening and middle game are handled the same way, a decision tree using an evaluation criteria to select the best move for that board state, the end game does not.
Once the piece count drops to < 7, the game brute force solves the game. Meaning it knows every single position and way the remaining pieces will move.
"even though stockfish literally does the same thing every turn"
No, you should read how stockfish is actually implemented.
As someone who wrote a chess engine by taking most of the algorithms that are on the chess programming wiki and throwing them together, I can say that you're kind of wrong.
Stockfish has SO MANY methods it uses that he could spend hours describing each one, a real answer would go for days.
>> SO MANY methods...
I was a little surprised they didn't mention that. My understanding is that the "old" heuristics/expert system evaluator outperforms the neural net evaluator except in a few specific phases of the game.
Didn't know Ed Helms programmed Stockfish. Pretty cool.
hahahahaha I was just thinking: "this guy looks so familiar"
He didn't, he only worked on chess engines, not stockfish..
9:49 That is such a nice sound effect
It's so in the right pocket of do dat it's like
Hard to explain
Evidently
To think, there was a time when we thought it would be impossible to ever teach a computer to play chess competitively against people. Until Deep Blue beat the best of us.
Who’s “we”
Cool video. We all know Levy knows what tablebase is but he’s a good sport. That’s crazy Fabi could have been world champion if he just trapped his knight.
idk why but the explanation of stockfish's 35 move win was so wild to me.
Levy's so good they can bring him on to interview someone else and the video is still awesome.
the beauty of this video is that it is entertaining and contains new information for both people who dont play chess at all and people who are really good at chess.
really interesting how the AI is designed to 'think'.
thanks wired, thanks levy, thanks... stockfish i guess!? 😅
Levy is such a kind person. Never fails to selflessly promote Magnus.
8:55 Levi on Wired: Stockfish is very specialized AI
Levi on GothamChess: Stockfish is a scumbag
Stockfish is a very specialized scumbag.
both statements are true
Levy: Congrats for 1 more video!!! So proud of you!!!
so cool that levy lets wired show up on his videos
I didn't know stockfish had neural elements. I thought it was an all classical algo. It would be interesting to hear a more computer science exact walk through of how it works. If well explained I think most could understand it.
I think they added the neural stuff in later versions, though it was already one the strongest before they did.
This is also why new players are so tempted to use engines, and also why it is very easy to catch them if they do.
this is the best video I see the chess, very good collab
This is one of the better vids of this series and maybe the whole wired asking "experts" series.
I love the part where Levy said he sometimes flips a coin to decide between three different moves.
This guy looks like he could sacrifice THE ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKK
If anyone's wondering about the sound: Brendon Moeller - Low Impact.
This was so good, please more ❤
have to admit Levy is a showman
I feel like Levy was asking questions and the stockfish guy kept giving him the same answer about how stockfish looks into the future better than a human.
Because that’s what stockfish does. It’s a massive data crunching probability machine. It’s not really ‘playing’ like a human does
I always love seeing Levy on WIRED.
Regarding that pawn move in front of the King, maybe Stockfish plays something like that with the goal of getting into a future position that is advantageous. And that advantageous position might be recognizable to you. I wonder if, as a human player, one can see a weird Stockfish move and then understand what future position the bot wants, and then play around that.
I don't even play chess but this is fascinating
Give it a go! Only 8 months ago I dismissed it as boring and only played by stuffy old men but it is like you said incredibly fascinating. The possibilities of this game is endless and has been studied for centuries
@goonerboy93 I think I just might, thanks for the encouragement
love levy's humor
Bro, they literally brute forced all the positions with 7 pieces of fewer. That's insane! Love it!
The man feels like he was a human created by the ai, who’s sole purpose was to interact with a human to see their perspective on the game.
I love Levy's videos. Using his advice I managed to get 1500 ELO on Lichess!
Congrats, Me right now is trying to reach 2000 elo but its so difficult the players I encounter are so serious
Nice one 😂😂😂
Levy never fails to be in a Wired video.
Wow thank you for this video. This clears it up a lot
Visuals on this video are amazing
So what happens if you play Stockfish vs Stockfish? Is it 50/50 between each. Is it the player that goes first gets an advantage? Would they just play the exact same game every time as they would choose the best move which would be the same every game they played?
They would draw every time as both would see their moves as the best and won’t be able to captivate on any advantage
They would draw mostly although they will win some games, they will still get the same number of scores. That's why when battling different chess engines, the first 10-15 moves will be based on the opening books before the computer starts thinking
It is always a draw. This is why in Computer Chess Tournaments, they are forced to play different openings for a set number of moves and then play on their own.
For example, Stockfish will play Leela on a set opening. Both play one game as White and one as Black. If Stockfish can win as White and defend as Black, it is considered the victor and stronger computer. They do this for hundreds of different openings.
The fact Alpha Zero made Stockfish look silly after only 4 hours of learning chess by playing against itself is both fascinating and scary at the same time.
It played against stockfish 8 running on the hardware equivalent to that of a laptop… so it was always going to win
They saturated the network in 4 hours. Had they trained it for a day, it wouldn't have played better.
@@liamb5791 maybe so but I think you’re missing the point. I know it’s not apples to apples; Stockfish agreed to the terms (as did others) but GPU will crush CPU on parallel computing and that’s the difference. The proof was in the neural network of Alpha Zero teaching itself which does require specialized hardware. The future of GPU will takeover tasks that CPU can never do no matter how much CPU is strengthened. It would be fun to run it back today and see how it plays out.
@@forgetaboutit1069Stockfish has long since surpassed alphazero. Another engine called leela adopted that style of learning but it is still worse than stockfish
@@DarthVader-wk9sd they played in 2017. Hope it long passed it lol. But the main point is GPU engines will eventually wipe the floor with CPU engines.
I like how the automaticly driven car at the end just turned on the windshield wiper, like it needed to see through it
Stockfish just goes down every branch of possibilities (permutations). Humans use indicators or 'mental cues' to quickly evaluate if there is a higher likelihood that there is a higher amount of these branches at that moment of the game that will go in their favor. So double pawns would be one of those cues or knights in the center of the board. Bishops on a clear diagonal etc. The more cues we have, the more we are certain that a position will likely end up more in our favour. This is why learning fundamentals is important because these fundamentals will lead to more favourable structures and thus more favourable outcomes in theory. The cues become more complex and you start adding more and more (like.pins, sacrifices etc) as your chess skills progress. This is probably the biggest calculation being done. Then chess players will additionally calculate individual lines down a couple moves per line and not every line but few important lines by first throwing away the obvious horrible ones quickly. And Magnus and Hikaru run stockfish light pretty much.
Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, and the one it desperately needs right now...
Stockfish knows more positions than Johnny Sins.
Me: opening with pe4
Stockfish: mate in 142
Me: pd3
Stockfish: wrong answer, mate in 44
This was a really satisfying and entertaining video. Thanks!
Like for Gary Linscott, a legitimate expert, an engineer and not some influencer bozo
Just like in any video game, the AI can become unbeatable. As they know your every move and react to the first frame you do and they do an opposite move that will beat it. You can only win when it lets you win.
Their reaction time is one of the biggest driving factors behind their ability to win. You see it in RTS's where the AI might not be building as efficiently as possible, but its unit management is unparalleled with 10x as many actions per second as human players. I'd love to see AI vs human when speed is equalized, then it's really about who is smarter. E.g. it takes a few seconds to even come up with legal moves, then several minutes to evaluate them. Here, you take away AI's biggest advantage, which is pure speed. Now it's all about being able to read and evaluate the board the best.
@@festivebear9946 Last time I checked, Leela Chess Zero on one node (playing without search, using intuition only) is about GM level in rapid time control, and Leela on about 10 nodes per move is roughly GM on classic time control. Maybe a little give and take, but I think that shows a rough picture on where AI stands without doing any calculation, or doing as few calculations as a human would
@@quag443 That is absolutely insane, thanks for the info!
when I was taking my CS degree I initially thought of going into AI as my major, gave up on that when I couldn't accurately do alpha-beta pruning on a simpler tree (couldn't really wrap my head around some other principles too) and now I'm a just a contentful SWE
The one with magnus and Fabian seemed like more of a I respect you enough not to waste our time playing out what I might misplay
My boy Gotham at it again.
Levi never fails to do this again
The AI knows every board state and what move to do accordingly, what a surprise 😂 16tb of memory actually surprised me though.
Only when there are 7 pieces of less. Even adding one more piece blows up the memory required to ridiculous amounts. It’s unknown whether we will achieve solving chess like this in the future, or even ever.
@@moatef1886 It's been estimated that there are way more possible variations in a game of chess than there are atoms in the observable universe... so, well, I guess not =)
It blows one's mind to think about that.
They have great chemistry and are both very charismatic!
They should make one of these that is way longer
I got some ideas on how I would write a chess engine, never looked into it or how awful it is to setup.
I would for example maximize the number of legal moves, or pick a move where the fewest number of positive moves are available for the opponent. Now this will turn into sacrifices all the time - but you could go a few layers deep.
Essentially give the opponent as many possible options of only a few are good. this way you allow them to make most mistakes.
You could also do something else, like chose a move where you opponent only has equal moves. To then win on times.
I wonder if you can finetune an engine based on their opponent. As in the computer championships, you do have limited time and equal hardware.
One idea I have had is to make a chess learning game. The beginner level would be finding all legal moves (to understand the game).
And the actual challenge then is to classify moves into blunders, mistakes, waiting, good. and the master level would be to rank them in order. I wonder if such a tool already exists, because forcing the human to think "like an engine" was an option.
Engines already do this and have been doing this for a long long time. It’s part of their evaluation function.
Levy be making fun of people for blundering in GTE when he casually makes 2 blunders and 2 mistakes
He's presumably playing Stockfish at its highest processing power, so it could label something a mistake that even base Stockfish would think is the best move.
@@rokeYouuer Yea i do notice that when i play games but just a joke
Great video!! Fun and informative. I never knew stockfish was so strong. That thing about the way it plays when the game is down to 7 pieces - that's scary.
Player: am I going to lose?
Stockfish: it's a logical certainty.
😨
keep in mind these endgame databases are available for all engines to use but yeah. Sometimes this can lead to some diabolical results where the engine is basically trying to avoid entering the tablebase results but doesn't see mate itself where it will make a technically worse move and turn mate in 21 into mate in 3.
This guy should make a TH-cam channel. What a lad.
"You idiots!! Mate in 35!!!" 😂😂
What happens if more than one move is tied for best move? How does it choose? You say that it evaluates them but a tie is possible, no?
I don't know about Stockfish, but in algorithms that try to maximize a certain result, often there are several factors for determining an optimal solution, with one taking precedence over others. If two moves have identical values for that most important factor, then it would move on to the next most important factor, and so on until one was greater than the other. Alternatively, they could have some function of all these factors, and when combining them at the end, come up with some final number that is guaranteed to be unique, or at least be unique with 99.9999% certainty. Remember, it is assessing billions of branching paths, so the probability of any two moves having an identical "likelihood of winning" value are exceedingly low. However, if all of these sophisticated algorithms still result such that two moves have the same "likelihood of winning" value, it would likely just pick one randomly.
It will just play the first one. There is always a difference between 2 "best" moves, even if just by 0.05.
@@Celatrathere absolutely is not always one best move in every position. There can be 10 different checkmates in 1 in a position
@@presleyelisememorial yes, but one of them leads to a faster mate thN the others. The less moves spent the better
What I don’t understand is why would stockfish pick a different opening on another game?
It has already assessed all possible structures for all the openings and it knows which one scores the best.
In your game, after 1.d4 it responded with Nf3, but I’ve seen it respond with d5 too.
different time controls, different hardware and the fact that sf is non-deterministic on more than 1 thread
if multiple moves will have the same win rate then it will just randomly choose one.
Humans don't even consider many of the possible moves, but sometimes one of those moves is the best. Some computer programs do that too ("forward pruning", not to be confused with "alpha-beta" pruning mentioned in the video) in order to search deeper elsewhere, but they end up making the same mistake that a human would. A computer program that doesn't forward-prune will find any win within its search depth.
That's why sometimes a computer might spit a Mate in 13 but not a Mate in 4 until the move has already been made.
Sou angolano, amo esse canal somente por causa do inglês.
Somente porcausa do inglês?
Existem milhões de canais em inglês😅😅😅
It's alright bro, if you want to feel better about losing to a bot, just play me in chess. I'll make you look like Stockfish 16.
AHAHAHAHAH
The way top engines just sit and shuffle pieces seemingly without principle because they found some sequence related to something very deep requiring tempi...
extremely well edited
Imagine when quantum computing kicks in and stockfish eventually gets OWNED!
Bold to assume stockfish wouldn't be adapted to be run on them
Dude, you know nothing about computers.
Algos run on the same hardware when they compete so there is no way it's not adapting if the hardware changes
Virtually unbeatable. But are they also physically unbeatable?
whack your computer and you're good
there's a robot that broke a kid's finger somewhere, so I'd say up to debate
Awesome Collab!! 🎉🎉
Wired making Gotham act like he doesn't know everything the expert is saying already