@Boogey Man Why would we create a synthetic being with its own desires? He's clearly talking about an AI that nearly solves the game on the first move and concludes a draw is inevitable
Linfa lol I was more talking about how far ahead they can predict these things while I’m like “yeah if I move here, he’s definitely gonna move this one piece” *makes move* *opponent completely counters in a totally different way*
I really want to see that fight though. Let Stockfish 10 show its true powers against AlphaZero. IF stockfish wins, that would be great, since AlphaZero would have a matching agent to train against. Developing even more amazing strategies
If you want to see no-castling analysis from an engine like Stockfish, just move all four knights out to shuffle the rooks, then bring them back to their starting squares and begin the analysis from there.
It's another way to do this. I'm a software developer and their code is avaliable but you don't need to mess with it. I think you can "blacklist" certain things. It's so long I messed with stockfish I don't remember how but it's possible.
@@arcycatten most software also has board edit analysis where you can just tell the game that castling is already invalid, and then continue from position. But yea, it really wouldnt be that hard to trick the engine into playing a default game with no castling.
4:05 - *"Who are we to argue with Alpha?"* Its amazing how we have reached a point in time in Chess History wherein it would be pointless for Humans to argue with an A.I. It were only about 2-3 decades ago wherein A.I. were a laughing stock in Chess.
If I'm being pedantic, and I usually am, the first "proper" victory came in 1997. Given the increase in computing power, we are insanely beyond the capability of that today. Deep blue scored 11.38 GFLOPS on LINPACK, which is used for bench marking super computers, and was the 259th fastest on the planet at the time, and took up two computer racks. Today we have smart phones that score 7.5 GFLOPS and fit in your pocket. What will be really interesting to see, is how well a human player will do against other human players, if they've only played chess against Alpha Zero their entire life and has only looked at Alpha Zero games.
It was like 2 years ago AI was a laughing stock in Go. Now MasterGo can humiliate any human by orders of magnitude every single game. Both games are now pointless IMO.
@@Christobanistan Much as someone who enjoys painting doesn't have to produce a masterpiece worthy of Rembrandt to enjoy it, so can people can play an imperfect game of chess and still enjoy it immensely. A thing isn't beautiful because it's perfect.
@@romankarabekov7723 You don't get it. gulpowski's proposal gives you a virgin board except that castling is not possible. Moving the king presupposes a pawn move that cannot be undone to achieve the initial position.
@@borisssino But his argument is that chess has gotten so high level and so by the book that nearly every move is preplanned and games regularly end in draws. All this does is introduce some chaos for a bit until new preplanned moves are discovered and it arrives to the same point chess is at today
You did not get the point. I think he meant chess would be more interesting without castles because it puts you into more dangerous positions. And yes eventually people would turn it into boring positions but that would take few years and lot of undiscovered traps could appear. Idk, this change is something not big so probably human chess wouldn't change that much.
Lots of hypothetical tangents, but why not, it was such an amazing game. I wish I knew chess better so that I could appreciate it even more. I hope they never augment human brains with embedded CPUs, it should never be allowed, at least not against an unaltered human.
The story of how the A2 pawn got to B6: 0:00 Humble beginnings of a humble pawn. 4:43 Moves to A4. It's adventure begins. 9:21 Gets its first blood on B5. Protected by a bishop and knight, but threatened by the black pawn on A6, the A2 pawn puts itself in a brave position. 17:24 The A2 pawn moves up to B6. The bishop that once protected it has long been gone. Right before it lies the powerful Black Queen. The pawn gets itself ready. It knows its purpose: to be prepared to get be killed by the beast that stood before it, and weaken Row 7, so that White can advance to checkmate. The pawn is almost scared, but the nobility of its goal erases any fear it had.
I can see why this game is so beautiful. Black played the perfect defense to the point where they were impenetrable, and white played the perfect offense to the point where black couldn't do anything but defend. When I see how this game draws, it makes me think of the immovable object vs the unstoppable force; where black is the immovable object and white is the unstoppable force, and when it came down to it, neither of them could win or lose in the end.
Wow dude your brain is just so huge that you can see the world from where your standing. It’s so enviable to be able to see such beauty in the midst of a mundane game of International Chess. I cannot fathom how it must feel to be intellectually superior to all of us plebeians who would rather turn this comment into a copypasta instead of understanding my feelings being conveyed through this message. You must have been born with a colossal IQ and pronounced as the reincarnation of a deity’s prefrontal cortex. I am very seriously restraining the urge to kneel in front of your and take you as my master to be worshipped for eternity. Thank you for reading this and have a nice day.
Some Ideas: Idea 1: Have GMs play for 16 steps each. Then give the game to AlphaZero and see which side wins. Idea 2: Have GMs and AlphaZero play as a team. In a team comprising of AlphaZero and a player, each will play one move every other step.
@@theuseraccountname Two teams, each is a GM+AlphaZero. So, there are two GMs and two AlphaZeros. In Vanilla format, the sequence for playing is GM1-GM2-AZ1-AZ2 where AZs are exactly the same algorithm with identical knowledge base (the two AZs have equal level of training). In a trained format, each GM could come with his own trained AZ (the same algorithm, but each GM trains his own AZ). This could also make people interested in training their own AZs.
When the other schoolkids and I were first learning checkers, for some reason we didn't learn the rule about having to jump when a capture is available. I hate that rule. It makes it less strategic, IMO.
What I was expecting of a perfect computer game: lots of subtle moves, you dont understand how it works but somehow it leads to an advantage. What the perfect computer game really is: Every piece hangs
the pices hanging, while it being a bad idea for the opponent to take them, are exactly the subtle moves you dont understand/don't see that create an advantage xD
No it's not. It's just a machine playing against a machine, two souless agregates of metal and microchips pretending to play chess. Would you be in awe to see two machines drawing the perfect score in a powerlifting competition? This is what those games are to me.
Le Cobra, I’ll answer that in a few parts: a direct reply to your question, and then a general response to your comment as a whole, arguing that AlphaZero is interesting as an entity and that the game’s beauty should be independent of who played it. To your question, actually I would be impressed insofar as I comprehend the magnitude of the robot’s achievement, but I wouldn’t be in awe of the robot’s strength because I have seen stronger robots. Back when extremely powerful machines were invented, like the steam engine and the hydraulic press, everybody was in awe of those machines’ strength, except for religious zealots who felt that humans should not “play god,” and the people whom such machines put at a competitive disadvantage in some industry. I don’t think either of these objections are well-founded; however, I will discuss them if you disagree. The thing that’s special about AlphaZero is its status as a maximal element under a particular ordering. In the same way that one, especially a child, can be in awe of a blue whale for being the largest animal, or a cheetah (or peregrine falcon) for being the fastest, there is natural allure to AlphaZero as an entity in it of itself. Now, most people grow bored of such things because they realize that the sets they’re considering are arbitrary, which devastates the maximal elements’ universal significance (with plural in the case of a partially order set). However, if you had the opportunity to observe the coldest place in the universe or experience the quietest room, then (provided curiosity hasn’t been stomped out) such childish wonder may be temporarily restored, proving that it’s a natural human inclination rather than a merely childish urge. Moreover, I’ll argue that a game of chess exists at a platonic level, much like a mathematical truth, and so can (and often should) be evaluated as having some beauty independently of any extrinsic context-that is, context not solely concerning the intrinsic state of the game. This is because the rules and starting position for a game of chess are established a priori, the same as the axioms and rules of inference are established a priori for any formal axiomatic system of deduction. So, there is a strong analogy between positions on a chess board and mathematical theorems, and (importantly!) between *games* and *proofs* of mathematical theorems. Indeed, mathematical truth, established by proof, is often regarded (for good reason) as the ultimate example of platonic objects. And so, if chess is a special case, then surely chess has a strong platonic attribute. Why, then, should a game of chess have an intrinsic evaluation of its beauty? Well, because the game is disconnected from the material world, as a platonic object. Sure, the game might be better regarded in some contexts as a character in a story containing some other context, but that would be an alternative interpretation, as the intrinsic one is always valid (and is often utilized in establishing the game’s character within the context of the storied interpretation). In light of this, I would like to propose the following analogy contrast the one you provided: Tal vs Larsen (or any number of other human games) is to AlphaZero vs AlphaZero as the Grand Canyon is to Valles Marineris. We are witnessing strength surpassing anything we’ve ever seen before at the advent of new technological advancements. Additionally, the game itself is attacking and sharp, and fought to a draw. I think it’s only fair to acknowledge that there is merit to this game, if there’s merit to any game.
Skittle Scopes, it’s important to respect each other’s opinions in order to maintain a civil discourse. Even though I disagree with Le Cobra, I appreciate that he/she spoke up and shared because it presented me with the opportunity to review my opinion and reevaluate. In the absence of such opportunities, it is more difficult to grow and improve. Therefore, it is bad for everybody to discourage dissenting opinions by shaming them. (Also, just because a response is long doesn’t make it good; Le Cobra could very well come back with a brilliant counter-rebuttal with which I agree. Indeed, perhaps I agree with him/her and simply don’t know it yet!)
@@Nick-vy3ee Not really 4000. Leela Zero is a much stronger engine than A0 and its currently rated 3441. www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship#event=ccc11-round-3&game=76 You guys have been brainwashed into thinking that A0 is the strongest chess entity. But A0 is not competing in any serius competition, and with no serius hardware. In the CCC championship their hardware is equal for all engines and its a championship that A0 refused to participate. If you want to see the most complicated games, you have to see LC0 playing against SF10 DEV. A0 games are complicated yes, but not the most complicated. A0 is not that strong compared to LC0. Not anymore.
@@tomasjosefpiano8902 yes, everybody is pretty sure that's the case, but wouldn't it be awesome to know for sure that if that was the case. I mean these computers are teaching us how to wipe our own asses. Think about how much they are changing the game of chess. So since we can ask the question about castling, we should ask the question.
You would have to add code to the non castling one so that while it can't castle itself, it takes into consideration the fact that the other ai can and incorporates it into the game.
@@SamuelPearlman Well idk if chess is solvable but it makes sense to me that the side who starts with an advantage before the first move would win everytime
@@philippfrogel9355 it... should be. By definition, something playing perfectly cannot lose. Any game with no random elements and the potential to draw will always end in a draw if both players play optimally. To Alpha, chess is as simple as Tic-tac-toe (or Knots and Crosses if you prefer); any competent TTT player should never lose, just as any perfect chess player should never lose. But if neither player can lose, that by definition results in a draw.
@@researchinbreeder its not obvious for it being not even true in general. you don't use any properties of the game and say at perfect play its always a draw. i could create a game where at perfect play of both players one player - lets say the white one - still always wins. also we have no clue how the absolute strongest play could look like, since chess hasn't (and will never) be fully explored. maybe white has forced checkmate in 256, who knows? ;D unlikely though, but possible. and this term of perfect play just refers to the strongest one we know at the time, so this is no absolute truth we can work with
@@philippfrogel9355 the properties of the individual game don't matter aside from having the potential for a draw to occur and not involving uncertainty/randomness. Chess may be complex, but its still a closed system with a finite number of possible meaningful moves (even if to a layperson it looks limitless). This means that it becomes possible to calculate what perfect play looks like, hence why analysis engines can exist at all. Perfection in this context is self-evident; any system with finite possibilities and without random elements will always have perfect play, and if there is a way for the game to draw then two players who always make the perfect move should always result in a draw. It's mathematics.
The thing is we can t argue with Ai in any other areas not only chess. These is just the start i think. In short time(10-15 years) the ai will solve the chess.
@@sharjah81 you can survive 26 moves pretty easily against any engine, if you know that you only have to survive 26 moons. It would involve a lot of sacrifices in exchange for time
@@pilotavery surviving 26 moves means having an equal game till move 26. any mating sequence will require thinking well ahead and this could be as many as 8 to 10 moves if you are playing against a top player (it could be as less as mate in 1 if you are playing a 1200 player). so if at move 5 the engine has a forced mate in 13 moves against me, I cannot claim I survived 18 moves against the engine: I only survived 5. I agree what I wrote above contradicts my initial statement.
It’s such a complicated and amazing game. Just move after move of things I wouldn’t even consider playing. Hanging a piece for compensation like 5 moves down the line? Incredible stuff.
I loved the line "Who are we to argue with Alpha". I'm a Software Engineer - albeit not an AI one - and it's always good to see people accepting that in some fields computers are vastly vastly vastly superiors to humans. They are of course only tools, so we can use them to both do things quicker and better, and sometimes even learn from them.
When I was a kid, I didn't know about castling. I only ever played with my dad. Interestingly, I found that I played a4 and h4 a lot. After learning the standard chess openings and how to play, as I grew older, I thought that I was a stupid player as a kid. But when I saw this video, I suddenly realised I didn't know castling as a kid, and truly alphazero plays a4 and h4 in this situation! I suddenly feel a lot less stupid haha
In addition to moving the kings around and back after move 2, every good chess program's editor has the option to disallow castling for both sides in the analysis.
the reason this is 23 minutes long is because is because agadmator keeps doing 3 minutes of moves and then saying:"but alpha doesn't fall for this."and going back 3 minutes of moves
19:29 This sounds like an interesting idea for chess tournament. Let Alpha play Alpha x number of moves to where the game is equal for black and white, then sit the players down and have them go from there.
@@mrmarkstv6585 Of course it exists. Number of chess games is finite at the end, despite that we are far far away from computing all and we may never will.
you know how some tournaments have the heart rate of each player and it's interesting to see how it fluctuates in difficult situations? Well, in lieu of that, I'd to see see fan speed in rpms for difficult calculations. Every time my fan goes crazy it seems like it's having an anxiety attack
Even if you couldn't disable it, the starting position of no castle chess is (almost*) exactly the same as the position arising from the following sequence of moves: 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Rg1 Rg8 3. Rh1 Rh8 4. Ng1 Ng8 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Rb1 Rb8 7. Ra1 Ra8 8. Nb1 Nb8 (*) the only (very theoretical) difference is that a sequence like Nc3 Nc6 Nb1 Nb8 etc is a draw by repetition one half-move earlier.
You have to retrain since alpha relies on machine learned ‘instincts’ to play. In the same ways humans would have to re-discover how to play the openings with this variation by playing a lot.
He demonstrated how these moves could alternatively play out from the same position and explained each time that AlphaZero saw these as bad moves. If you were actively listening it wasn't too hard to follow.
I've recently found this channel and am really liking it, but that is a problem. It's just not always clear when he's following the game and when he's running through a possible set of moves. As a novice that loves the game, the channel is very interesting, but much more geared to high-end players.
If chess ever becomes a solved game, then Alpha will eventually offer a draw on the first move, if the a perfect game is drawn, or Alpha will calculate how many moves until forced checkmate, if a perfect game is won by either side.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 Don't think alpha zero actually calculates all the lines or any lines at all. It just automatically knows only the best next move for every possible position (assuming its trained for long enough) so it doesn't actually need to go into depth as for examples stockfish does.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 Actually, Stockfish calculates about 800 million moves per second, And still loses about 9/10 matches against alpha zero and put in mind that alpha zero calculates about 800 thousand move per second. So putting this in perspective, we can clearly observe that the engines calculate useless lines which can look like a sacrifice for them and keep going in the useless lines more and more. while a human brain can notice that this move is useless without analyzing the whole board and all moves till a checkmate. Even tho, an engine is always gonna be better. Who knows after neuralink of elon musk, we may have a chance to beat alpha zero, one day
When watching this game I am reminded of a quote by Bird about Steinitz. Take the pieces off the board and them in a closed bag, shake them vigorously for 2 minutes, and then drop them all back onto the board from a height of 2 feet. This is the playing style of AlphaZero
Stockfish has been getting much stronger so we will see. Although I am sure Alpha has also improved a ton but as far as I know new versions are not being released .
Need stronger alphas that will agree to a draw from the first move.
@Boogey Man Why would we create a synthetic being with its own desires? He's clearly talking about an AI that nearly solves the game on the first move and concludes a draw is inevitable
They can just program it to not be able to ask for a draw
Aahhh yes, the Giri factor.
Thats an open question tho, is there an actual perfect play advantage in chess
Boogey Man stfu
*watches 3 minutes of chess moves*
“But alpha wasn’t going to fall for that trap”
*switches back to game board from 3 minutes ago*
Yeah I don't like how long he goes on sidelines
Linfa lol I was more talking about how far ahead they can predict these things while I’m like “yeah if I move here, he’s definitely gonna move this one piece” *makes move* *opponent completely counters in a totally different way*
@@Linfaviglia that's what makes a strong player though...
I'm OK with that BUT at least he needs to distinguish it for us visually (what is the real game and his prediction). It's confusing! 😂
You must be new here
"Do you know Vladimir Kromnik"
Me: No, I-
"Of course you do."
Me:
Lmaoooo
Yes
We only know vladimir putin
@@chirotam2314 WE know only Joseph Stalin
Mitsuki we only know Vladimir Spiridonovich
And it was in this position I realize I have no idea how to play chess.
As far as AlphaZero is concerned, no human knows how to play chess. We just push the pieces around in childish ways.
Yeah, AlphaZero plays far above the masters
Trueeee
why did we build this thing? Its so embarrassing...
I think the castles move in straight lines, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what that horse is doing
alpha: draw?
alpha: okay.
alpha: let's eat some humans. i'm buying.
alpha: okay.
Amanuel Temesgen Spam yes. But tasty 😋
alpha captures on humans*
Taste like chicken and rich in proteins
wait wha-
r/holup
Human: pawn e4
Alpha: mate in 97 moves
Human: pawn d4
Alpha: mate in 62 moves
Human: draw?
😂😂
Too good
Alpha: I'll take that for the robot in your garage.
Human: Okay
Alpha: World domination in 467 moves
@@tranquilclaws8470 but human draws of alpha zero to conclude in amazing 42069 moves
@@auliaakbar4197 I can't quite pick out what you meant to say there.
This is getting out of hand. Now there are two of them!
We should not have made this bargain
@@WiseSam95 Only one is playing with itself...there are not 2
@@kavyanshagrawal5279 I presume it's a joke but okay (⌐■-■)
@@kavyanshagrawal5279 no you're the only one that plays with himself
Your jokes are very impressive. You must be very proud.
"Who are we to argue with Alpha" said the human slave mining for gold in the Arctic in the year 2075.
2075?
Joe: This is decades away or years away?
Elon: It's gonna be on sunday afternoon.
What does Alpha need gold for?
@@alankasjan6488 wait so are you thinking of possibly arguing with alpha?
@@alankasjan6488 circuitry
@@alankasjan6488 economic investment then gaining the ability to flex the economy, then break it since it's alphazero
Philosophers : pawns are the soul of the chess....
Alphazero : they are just blocking my rook....
This comment is underrated
lmaooo
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
underrated does not begin to describe this comment. 2.2k likes is far too few
Not sure if philosophers care about chess
Carlsen-“I don’t believe in fortresses”
Kramnik-“I don’t believe in castles”
Tal - "I don't believe in good moves, I believe in mine"
Karpov - "I dont believe in flat earth"
Capablanca "I don't believe in opening theory"
Me - "How can I buy AlphaZero?"
Paul morphy - "i dont believe in chess"
Alpha 1: "you're weak"
Alpha 2: "I'm you."
Alpha 2: checkmate lol
Flash: I am the fastest man alive
Savitar: No, I am.
Savitar is flash btw
@@gaoindustries8013 Thanks for ruining season 3 :p
Gao why
@@Rain_Beau I like the avengers endgame reference from when thanos said to scarlet witch "I dont even know you"
"Interesting, but doesn't work." The story of my chess games.
this line would look great on a t-shirt 😀
@@dasguptaarup8684 try it with girls
"If i won as white its because i was white, If i won as black its because im Alpha Zero, If it was a draw its because we were Alpha Zero"
-Alpha Zero
Emir Sorensen sounded a bit racist 😛
@@lemons20 its bogolyubov's quote i changed the quote a bit
@@lemons20 😂😂😂
Alpha had several draws against Stockfish, but appreciate the sentiment behind this.
I really want to see that fight though. Let Stockfish 10 show its true powers against AlphaZero.
IF stockfish wins, that would be great, since AlphaZero would have a matching agent to train against. Developing even more amazing strategies
He played like a wholeass half a game before I realized he was demonstrating what alpha could have done 🤦♂️
this happens all time when im watching his videos lol
And then you realise this whole video was just a version of what could have been done and instead changes the starting move
True, i like when he sometimes shows alternative lines, but this videos was 80% alternative lines and not the game itself
I fucking hate this sometimes, maybe put it in the end of the video instead of mid game
@@wizzies9413 That or not showing 20 moves variations every 2 moves
If you want to see no-castling analysis from an engine like Stockfish, just move all four knights out to shuffle the rooks, then bring them back to their starting squares and begin the analysis from there.
Smart!!
Genious!!!
It's another way to do this. I'm a software developer and their code is avaliable but you don't need to mess with it. I think you can "blacklist" certain things. It's so long I messed with stockfish I don't remember how but it's possible.
@@alpha007org yeah, but this is a way to do it if you don't know much about coding and stuff
@@arcycatten most software also has board edit analysis where you can just tell the game that castling is already invalid, and then continue from position.
But yea, it really wouldnt be that hard to trick the engine into playing a default game with no castling.
This is the chess equivalent of the Spider-Man pointing at himself meme.
EXACTLY
Same!
Lmao that's a perfect description
There is another
:D
6:19 Artificial intelligence castling artificially. What a time to be alive
They learn too fast mate, we need an uprising against these machines before they put us in human farm tubes
@@OCCNP ??
@@user-zu6ts5fb6g Mr. Anderson. Surprised to see me?
zapdos6244 No
@@zapdos6244 Mr. Anderson, welcome back.
Alpha zero 1: you activated my trap card!
Alpha zero 2: No, you activated my trap card!
uno reverse card intensivies
*No, I Am Behind You - TV Tropes*
When the two smartest kids in the class get different answers
Lol
I mean technically this looks like the two smartest kids got the same answer but using two drastically different methods.
@@republicfalcon They get the same answer using the same methods, yet from different perspectives
But its both the right answers
@@republicfalcon exactly
“Alpha is not about to be tricked, by the other Alpha”
Truly Alpha is unquestionable
nice try tho!
Yaa 7:14
When he said that it actually made me laugh! Reminded me of that Spider Man meme.
There can be only one!
4:05 - *"Who are we to argue with Alpha?"*
Its amazing how we have reached a point in time in Chess History wherein it would be pointless for Humans to argue with an A.I.
It were only about 2-3 decades ago wherein A.I. were a laughing stock in Chess.
If I'm being pedantic, and I usually am, the first "proper" victory came in 1997. Given the increase in computing power, we are insanely beyond the capability of that today. Deep blue scored 11.38 GFLOPS on LINPACK, which is used for bench marking super computers, and was the 259th fastest on the planet at the time, and took up two computer racks.
Today we have smart phones that score 7.5 GFLOPS and fit in your pocket.
What will be really interesting to see, is how well a human player will do against other human players, if they've only played chess against Alpha Zero their entire life and has only looked at Alpha Zero games.
Martin Schou these are the useless information (to me as a chess illiterate) that I love seeing in the comments ❤️ 👍
@L 024 Yep, and they are exponentially increasing too. (doubling every 18 months at the moment)
It was like 2 years ago AI was a laughing stock in Go. Now MasterGo can humiliate any human by orders of magnitude every single game.
Both games are now pointless IMO.
@@Christobanistan Much as someone who enjoys painting doesn't have to produce a masterpiece worthy of Rembrandt to enjoy it, so can people can play an imperfect game of chess and still enjoy it immensely. A thing isn't beautiful because it's perfect.
If you want to analyze with an engine and solve the no-castle problem: play both knights, move both rooks and then return to the starting position
You deserve a medal!
Genius.
I think you can also just turn off castling rights on a position and ask the engine to analyze, but I actually like your version way more
Just move the both kings on move 3 :/
@@romankarabekov7723 You don't get it. gulpowski's proposal gives you a virgin board except that castling is not possible. Moving the king presupposes a pawn move that cannot be undone to achieve the initial position.
"Who amongst us remembers how this pawn even got to B6?"... Literally summarises the entire game XD
I didn’t even know that pawn existed 😂
I did, but didnt know you could push it
I remember that pawn. It ran off my board!
Because i saw this comment before watching I only looked at the pawn and i still dont know how it got there
I remember a4 after h4, and just that.
>complains about world championship games ending in draws
>game titled "The perfect game"... ends in a draw
In saying “the perfect game”, he means that every move of the game was the best possible move, in other words, zero mistakes
@@borisssino But his argument is that chess has gotten so high level and so by the book that nearly every move is preplanned and games regularly end in draws. All this does is introduce some chaos for a bit until new preplanned moves are discovered and it arrives to the same point chess is at today
He never complained that the championship games ended in a draw.
@@pokerbuddy62
He didn't complain about that. Kramnik did so he introduced this variant to try and counter it.
You did not get the point. I think he meant chess would be more interesting without castles because it puts you into more dangerous positions. And yes eventually people would turn it into boring positions but that would take few years and lot of undiscovered traps could appear. Idk, this change is something not big so probably human chess wouldn't change that much.
I can play chess against myself and get to a draw too. I guess Alphazero is no better than me in terms of net results 🤷♂️
Jokes on you, i can play against myself, and lose with both sides
@Nathan Sindlinger u get mad at yourself for playing like an asshole and then flip the board
I also play against myself too but actually get checkmated idk how it happens
That was the best comment I read. LMFAO
@@3ibad16 AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
The most stunning thing here is that they agreed to a draw on move 33 !!! I was like wait what ? It seemed like they have been playing forever lol
That was a very long and rich game in 33 moves.
Lots of hypothetical tangents, but why not, it was such an amazing game. I wish I knew chess better so that I could appreciate it even more. I hope they never augment human brains with embedded CPUs, it should never be allowed, at least not against an unaltered human.
If both alpha is given information that they are against another alpha, they would have ended in draw before the match even started.
Right that game would have taken me days, or even weeks.
@@strings1984 years you mean
normal chess picture: *some dude smiling for the camera*
alphazero's picture: *mind blowing apart*
It's so crazy how Alpha moves. Seems so unnatural and yet in every position there are two hundred threats
Alpha moves in mysterious ways
Alpha is kinda scary I think
@@earlingtonthe3rd now imagine if by accident it's given a task to "fix the humanity problem". And it finds a final solution.
It's like an eldritch ballet. I felt such terror when I saw the incredible TRIPLE threat in mid game.
This is art
@@cinegraphics but you would have to train alpha with a dataset first and sadly we lack a dataset on solutions to humanity problems at the moment.
Carlsen - '' i dont believe in fortresses ''
Alfazero - " i dont believe in carlsen "
Holly sht. O god.....best coment ever!
ROFLMAOOO
Best
This is awesome man😀👍
You wasted a perfect "I don't believe in Magnuses"
-Do you know Vladimir Kramnik?
-Who?
-Of course you do, he's a legend chess champion.
-Oh...
Agadmator vs Agadmator, the perfect Hello Everyone
😂
You mean - HELLOW!!! everyone
Sorry about that
Sorry about that
"And it was in this position on move 40 that agadmator resigned the game as there is nothing more to do here."
For those of you who figured out the move, you are an excellent agadmator, for those of you who just want to enjoy the show...
AlphaZero: The only one that can beat is me, and I can't even do it
Me: loses to Stockfish 1
Stockfish 1 isn't actually THAT easy. It randomly offers you material but is still not easy to checkmate
@@IschmarVI Wait for a free piece, then trade evenly and win an easy end game.
Up to 7 for me. Honestly, I’m proud as fuck
Thomas Castillo IM Eric Rosen: also loses to Stockfish 1
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The story of how the A2 pawn got to B6:
0:00 Humble beginnings of a humble pawn.
4:43 Moves to A4. It's adventure begins.
9:21 Gets its first blood on B5. Protected by a bishop and knight, but threatened by the black pawn on A6, the A2 pawn puts itself in a brave position.
17:24 The A2 pawn moves up to B6. The bishop that once protected it has long been gone. Right before it lies the powerful Black Queen. The pawn gets itself ready. It knows its purpose: to be prepared to get be killed by the beast that stood before it, and weaken Row 7, so that White can advance to checkmate. The pawn is almost scared, but the nobility of its goal erases any fear it had.
Lord of the rings but chess
Better character arc than most anime.
Not all heroes wear capes
We even got the good ending with the pawn surviving until a truce gets called to bring peace
Haha good story
"Alpha retreats with the knight" - Me -"that's the type of thing i would have done"
Exactly
is that username a nazareth reference?
Me too bro
"I have the power of gods"
Agreed.
There were so many insane lines shown I feel like I just watched 10 games.
WATCHED 3 TIMES TO UNDERSTAND THE LINES WHEN WHITE GOT PIECE DOWN :).. TOO TIRED
I can see why this game is so beautiful. Black played the perfect defense to the point where they were impenetrable, and white played the perfect offense to the point where black couldn't do anything but defend.
When I see how this game draws, it makes me think of the immovable object vs the unstoppable force; where black is the immovable object and white is the unstoppable force, and when it came down to it, neither of them could win or lose in the end.
AKA they just pass through each other
@Charlemagne exactly just depends on the decided coordinate system
Wow dude your brain is just so huge that you can see the world from where your standing. It’s so enviable to be able to see such beauty in the midst of a mundane game of International Chess. I cannot fathom how it must feel to be intellectually superior to all of us plebeians who would rather turn this comment into a copypasta instead of understanding my feelings being conveyed through this message. You must have been born with a colossal IQ and pronounced as the reincarnation of a deity’s prefrontal cortex. I am very seriously restraining the urge to kneel in front of your and take you as my master to be worshipped for eternity. Thank you for reading this and have a nice day.
@Veni Wotwot II what...?
@@veniwotwotii3936 😭🍆😳😩🗿
“Maybe I will push this pawn... someday.” 😆
Witnesses say he is still waiting to push that pawn
Came here to write this exact comment as soon as he said it. You have my like.
@@JChimos mee too and also liked it
Is it me or he just made a joke?
Someone please post the timestamp for when he said that 🙏🏻
Some Ideas:
Idea 1: Have GMs play for 16 steps each. Then give the game to AlphaZero and see which side wins.
Idea 2: Have GMs and AlphaZero play as a team. In a team comprising of AlphaZero and a player, each will play one move every other step.
@William Muraszko that's actually a cool ass story lol
With Idea 2, the GMs+AlphaZero wins b/c AlphaZero=AlphaZero, but GM > player. Could you clarify that?
@@theuseraccountname Two teams, each is a GM+AlphaZero. So, there are two GMs and two AlphaZeros.
In Vanilla format, the sequence for playing is GM1-GM2-AZ1-AZ2 where AZs are exactly the same algorithm with identical knowledge base (the two AZs have equal level of training).
In a trained format, each GM could come with his own trained AZ (the same algorithm, but each GM trains his own AZ). This could also make people interested in training their own AZs.
It would be chaos because it would be 2 different plans on the same board, or 4 different actually. Interesting
@@surrehue333 Actually the AZ doesn't have any plans (yet). Planning and strategizing is a human things.
16:13 lmaoo "I know you guys are already freaking out but uuuh... bishop to f4. Yeah, we have to check that out as well" the way he said it i'm dead
I used to play this format of Chess before I learnt to play Chess
When the other schoolkids and I were first learning checkers, for some reason we didn't learn the rule about having to jump when a capture is available. I hate that rule. It makes it less strategic, IMO.
Didn't every indian?
@@rakeshkapoor6019 without knowing the context you are trying to come across as smartass.
@@puremercury it also makes the game end
@@Henrix1998 Checkers is more positional if the player has a choice of capturing.
7:29 “Here’s where things get crazy.”
I already didn’t understand what was going on.
😂
Off me☠️☠️
xD
It wasn't that hard
What I was expecting of a perfect computer game: lots of subtle moves, you dont understand how it works but somehow it leads to an advantage.
What the perfect computer game really is: Every piece hangs
the pices hanging, while it being a bad idea for the opponent to take them, are exactly the subtle moves you dont understand/don't see that create an advantage xD
this has to be satire tho.
Well, that's precisely the ingenuity of the moves.
And somehow they couldn't divise a way to capture those hanging pieces.
Yet you would be losing if you capture the hanging pieces hahaha
This is what the archetypal "chess game between geniuses" looks like. Almost every move is a super sharp tactical shot. This is wild.
No it's not. It's just a machine playing against a machine, two souless agregates of metal and microchips pretending to play chess.
Would you be in awe to see two machines drawing the perfect score in a powerlifting competition? This is what those games are to me.
Le Cobra, I’ll answer that in a few parts: a direct reply to your question, and then a general response to your comment as a whole, arguing that AlphaZero is interesting as an entity and that the game’s beauty should be independent of who played it.
To your question, actually I would be impressed insofar as I comprehend the magnitude of the robot’s achievement, but I wouldn’t be in awe of the robot’s strength because I have seen stronger robots. Back when extremely powerful machines were invented, like the steam engine and the hydraulic press, everybody was in awe of those machines’ strength, except for religious zealots who felt that humans should not “play god,” and the people whom such machines put at a competitive disadvantage in some industry. I don’t think either of these objections are well-founded; however, I will discuss them if you disagree.
The thing that’s special about AlphaZero is its status as a maximal element under a particular ordering. In the same way that one, especially a child, can be in awe of a blue whale for being the largest animal, or a cheetah (or peregrine falcon) for being the fastest, there is natural allure to AlphaZero as an entity in it of itself. Now, most people grow bored of such things because they realize that the sets they’re considering are arbitrary, which devastates the maximal elements’ universal significance (with plural in the case of a partially order set). However, if you had the opportunity to observe the coldest place in the universe or experience the quietest room, then (provided curiosity hasn’t been stomped out) such childish wonder may be temporarily restored, proving that it’s a natural human inclination rather than a merely childish urge.
Moreover, I’ll argue that a game of chess exists at a platonic level, much like a mathematical truth, and so can (and often should) be evaluated as having some beauty independently of any extrinsic context-that is, context not solely concerning the intrinsic state of the game. This is because the rules and starting position for a game of chess are established a priori, the same as the axioms and rules of inference are established a priori for any formal axiomatic system of deduction. So, there is a strong analogy between positions on a chess board and mathematical theorems, and (importantly!) between *games* and *proofs* of mathematical theorems. Indeed, mathematical truth, established by proof, is often regarded (for good reason) as the ultimate example of platonic objects. And so, if chess is a special case, then surely chess has a strong platonic attribute. Why, then, should a game of chess have an intrinsic evaluation of its beauty? Well, because the game is disconnected from the material world, as a platonic object. Sure, the game might be better regarded in some contexts as a character in a story containing some other context, but that would be an alternative interpretation, as the intrinsic one is always valid (and is often utilized in establishing the game’s character within the context of the storied interpretation).
In light of this, I would like to propose the following analogy contrast the one you provided: Tal vs Larsen (or any number of other human games) is to AlphaZero vs AlphaZero as the Grand Canyon is to Valles Marineris. We are witnessing strength surpassing anything we’ve ever seen before at the advent of new technological advancements. Additionally, the game itself is attacking and sharp, and fought to a draw. I think it’s only fair to acknowledge that there is merit to this game, if there’s merit to any game.
Lol.destroyed
Skittle Scopes, it’s important to respect each other’s opinions in order to maintain a civil discourse. Even though I disagree with Le Cobra, I appreciate that he/she spoke up and shared because it presented me with the opportunity to review my opinion and reevaluate. In the absence of such opportunities, it is more difficult to grow and improve. Therefore, it is bad for everybody to discourage dissenting opinions by shaming them. (Also, just because a response is long doesn’t make it good; Le Cobra could very well come back with a brilliant counter-rebuttal with which I agree. Indeed, perhaps I agree with him/her and simply don’t know it yet!)
@@alexandersanchez9138 alright
most complicated game ever, got lost after agadmator start showing a line
And then this maybe happened, but of course it did not, I'm like am I too high or did he just use words to cross my eyes
He really likes side lines. after he comes back from a side line, I already forget what was the starting position.
Definately not the most complicated game
@@Nick-vy3ee Not really 4000. Leela Zero is a much stronger engine than A0 and its currently rated 3441. www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship#event=ccc11-round-3&game=76
You guys have been brainwashed into thinking that A0 is the strongest chess entity. But A0 is not competing in any serius competition, and with no serius hardware. In the CCC championship their hardware is equal for all engines and its a championship that A0 refused to participate.
If you want to see the most complicated games, you have to see LC0 playing against SF10 DEV.
A0 games are complicated yes, but not the most complicated. A0 is not that strong compared to LC0. Not anymore.
NUKE so why isn’t alpha zero considered over 4k to you?
(Alpha 1 pointing a gun at Alpha 2)
Alpha 1: It's a draw
Alpha 2: Always has been.
lol
It’s more like Alpha aiming at a mirror and calling it a draw
Playing against alfa be like :
Human: e5...
Alpha: mate in 4...
Alpha0: Mate is imminent.
mate in 347
@@GinjouArmy Defending is futile. You will be mated
Me: Opens with the London system to troll
Alpha: mate in 13
13 moves later
Me: fuck
@@veryInteresting_ Sexbots will be like:
AlphaZero after the game: Congratulations, you played yourself
AlphaZero: You can’t defeat me
Human: No, but he can
*points to mirror*
More like
AlphaZero: You will lose
Human: Yeah, but she won't
points to mirror
@@orangehatchris is he a sissy boy?
omgggggg i love this comment
th-cam.com/video/Mo1jfzS6AOY/w-d-xo.html
@@sidarthur8706 lmao, exactly
I would love to see normal alpha vs one of these alphas that can’t castle to see if it can draw castling alpha
daaamn thats a good idea you have there,i also want to know the results
I'm pretty sure castling alpha would destroy the non-castling alpha. They're of the same strenght and one of them has an advantage.
@@tomasjosefpiano8902 yes, everybody is pretty sure that's the case, but wouldn't it be awesome to know for sure that if that was the case. I mean these computers are teaching us how to wipe our own asses. Think about how much they are changing the game of chess. So since we can ask the question about castling, we should ask the question.
You would have to add code to the non castling one so that while it can't castle itself, it takes into consideration the fact that the other ai can and incorporates it into the game.
@@tomasjosefpiano8902 here also one alpha has an advantage - the white one, as it has the first move.
You know we've solved chess when the AI offers a draw on the first move
Ishaan Salhotra Haha chess will be solved when white wins 100% since they start with the first move.
@@TheBussyAnnihilator Prove it! No guarantee this is correct.
@@SamuelPearlman All chess engines give white a slight advantage in the analysis because they get to make the first move.
@@TheBussyAnnihilator I agree that that is the case. I disagree that this proves that chess is solvable for a 100% white win.
@@SamuelPearlman Well idk if chess is solvable but it makes sense to me that the side who starts with an advantage before the first move would win everytime
21:23 It might be the way to go to make chess you know... You know... You know... I don't know.
LMAO
🤣
Speechcraft: 100
And it was in every position that everyone was like "what??"
according to the lack of 'spoiler: alpha zero won' comments it will be a draw
That's some Alphazero reasoning there.
@@user-vo8zx1db6m its not obvious
@@philippfrogel9355 it... should be. By definition, something playing perfectly cannot lose. Any game with no random elements and the potential to draw will always end in a draw if both players play optimally. To Alpha, chess is as simple as Tic-tac-toe (or Knots and Crosses if you prefer); any competent TTT player should never lose, just as any perfect chess player should never lose. But if neither player can lose, that by definition results in a draw.
@@researchinbreeder its not obvious for it being not even true in general. you don't use any properties of the game and say at perfect play its always a draw. i could create a game where at perfect play of both players one player - lets say the white one - still always wins. also we have no clue how the absolute strongest play could look like, since chess hasn't (and will never) be fully explored. maybe white has forced checkmate in 256, who knows? ;D unlikely though, but possible. and this term of perfect play just refers to the strongest one we know at the time, so this is no absolute truth we can work with
@@philippfrogel9355 the properties of the individual game don't matter aside from having the potential for a draw to occur and not involving uncertainty/randomness. Chess may be complex, but its still a closed system with a finite number of possible meaningful moves (even if to a layperson it looks limitless). This means that it becomes possible to calculate what perfect play looks like, hence why analysis engines can exist at all. Perfection in this context is self-evident; any system with finite possibilities and without random elements will always have perfect play, and if there is a way for the game to draw then two players who always make the perfect move should always result in a draw. It's mathematics.
"Maybe I will move this pawn someday" is a really simple, nice, funny and spot-on explanation to the way chess is played at pro level nowadays
4:05 "who are we to argue with alpha?"
That's exactly what alpha wants you to say xD
What's wrong with that tho
"Who are we to argue with Alpha"
-Agadmator 2k19
Ikr we filthy humans won't understand supreme Alpha's thinking XD
4:06
Alpha1 shall argue alpha zeros ;)
The thing is we can t argue with Ai in any other areas not only chess. These is just the start i think. In short time(10-15 years) the ai will solve the chess.
hahahahhaha
As a Chess rookie, it’s amazing to me how simply moving a pawn forward 1 space was described as a brilliant move.
This game literally made my head hurt
Fantastic video. I'm not good at chess, but I don't have to be to follow and appreciate your commentary.
oh hey it's taran from lmg nice
Didn't expect to see you here...
A wild Taran the Macro King appeared.
alpha: draw?
alpha: okay.
alpha: let's eat some humans. i'm buying.
alpha: okay.
That’s how it starts taran.... 78 videos later and ur an avid chessplayer
humans: evil AI isn't real, it can't hurt you
AI: *throws pawns violently*
Alpha zero be like:
Finally, a worthy opponent! Our battle will be legendary.
@Thomas Kaprielian me
@Thomas Kaprielian ..um... Tai Lung said that ... I think
Finally, a worthy opponent! Our battle will be legendary.
Result: Draw
17:30 "who among us remembers how this pawn even got to b6" 😂😂
דני איזנברג ......I want this on a shirt!
I remember how...
Alpha White pushed it
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Me: Plays pawn to e4
AlphaZero: Mate in 26
Me: ...
No... not if you play even remotely correct.
@@jagmohansingh2060 It’s a joke dumbass
well you are really gifted to survive alpha for 26 moves. the likes of tal and kasparov have lost in 17 moves
@@sharjah81 you can survive 26 moves pretty easily against any engine, if you know that you only have to survive 26 moons. It would involve a lot of sacrifices in exchange for time
@@pilotavery surviving 26 moves means having an equal game till move 26. any mating sequence will require thinking well ahead and this could be as many as 8 to 10 moves if you are playing against a top player (it could be as less as mate in 1 if you are playing a 1200 player). so if at move 5 the engine has a forced mate in 13 moves against me, I cannot claim I survived 18 moves against the engine: I only survived 5.
I agree what I wrote above contradicts my initial statement.
It’s such a complicated and amazing game. Just move after move of things I wouldn’t even consider playing. Hanging a piece for compensation like 5 moves down the line? Incredible stuff.
This variant is called “Indian chess” in Russia. It’s quite popular there.
It is the way chess was originally played. That's why Indian Chess
Isn't there something in Indian chess about the king being able to move like a knight at some point?
@@jasonanno3881
The king can make a knight move once in a game, known as Indian castling
@@abhir7823 wow that is so much cooler!
@@jasonanno3881 And also even in the ordinary game once checked though you haven't moved the king, you can't castle. That's hard as fuck.
I loved the line "Who are we to argue with Alpha". I'm a Software Engineer - albeit not an AI one - and it's always good to see people accepting that in some fields computers are vastly vastly vastly superiors to humans. They are of course only tools, so we can use them to both do things quicker and better, and sometimes even learn from them.
10:54 "... that's.. not a capture."
excellent analysis as always, Agad! HAHAHAHA
there have been alot of crazy lines in chess, but " maybe i will push this pawn someday " is the craziest line ever 😂
Lmao
"who amongst us remembers how this pawn even got to b6?" was good too
@@Tedisdeaad true 😂
When I was a kid, I didn't know about castling. I only ever played with my dad. Interestingly, I found that I played a4 and h4 a lot. After learning the standard chess openings and how to play, as I grew older, I thought that I was a stupid player as a kid. But when I saw this video, I suddenly realised I didn't know castling as a kid, and truly alphazero plays a4 and h4 in this situation! I suddenly feel a lot less stupid haha
I think IAs are changing the standar rules of chess, I’ve seen artificial castling or not castling in IA normal games
Can I beat alpha zero if I train hard?
@@pitounefer772 No
As a good chess player I never felt that insignificant watching a game
Yeah
Whats your elo?
i wanted alpha vs alpha and here is it - thank you so much!
Alpha brain: What is my purpose?
Human: Play e4
Alpha brain: at least they're not asking me to pass the butter
@@colloredbrothers 💀💀💀
😊 #alphazeroisdeadsc
In addition to moving the kings around and back after move 2, every good chess program's editor has the option to disallow castling for both sides in the analysis.
You just increased Agadmator's vast chess knowledge.
"alpha is not about to be tricked by the other alpha"
-Agadmator 2k19
"We would need to have an entire video just to analyze one of these moves" ... the fact that he can explain this at all is super impressive
#AlphaZeroIsDeadSC 😊
Humanity: let's play without castling to avoid engine lines
Also humanity: alpha vs alpha without castling
We humans: create tensions on one side of board.
Alpha zero: Attack!!!!
Pieces on board: but which side sir?
Alpha zero: *ALL SIDES!*
the reason this is 23 minutes long is because is because agadmator keeps doing 3 minutes of moves and then saying:"but alpha doesn't fall for this."and going back 3 minutes of moves
00:00 And it was in this position I laughed hysterically as there were no reasons for me as a human being to actually keep up with all the lines.
A game where afterwards each player is asked which move they would play differently, and both players respond "none of them."
19:29 This sounds like an interesting idea for chess tournament. Let Alpha play Alpha x number of moves to where the game is equal for black and white, then sit the players down and have them go from there.
The perfect chess game doesn't exi...
Not yet and 99.9% it wont exist
@@mrmarkstv6585 Of course it exists. Number of chess games is finite at the end, despite that we are far far away from computing all and we may never will.
@@mrmarkstv6585 not ye but once we get quantum computing...
@@lolfubert1122 we hv quantum computers rn
So, the perfect game is a DRAW? Well, I thought this made the pro games so 'boring', eh?
I used to play a lot of chess with friends before we knew castling was a thing and I always developed my rook by pushing h4/h5
you know how some tournaments have the heart rate of each player and it's interesting to see how it fluctuates in difficult situations?
Well, in lieu of that, I'd to see see fan speed in rpms for difficult calculations. Every time my fan goes crazy it seems like it's having an anxiety attack
FYI: You can just disable castling in Stockfish (or more accurately, tell Stockfish castling is no longer available for both players)
Exactly there was no reason to train alpha zero again from scratch in my opinion, but still it took 4 hours or so not a big deal
Exactly, I guess Agadmator doesn't know that. It's in the setup menu. /shrug
Even if you couldn't disable it, the starting position of no castle chess is (almost*) exactly the same as the position arising from the following sequence of moves: 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Rg1 Rg8 3. Rh1 Rh8 4. Ng1 Ng8 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Rb1 Rb8 7. Ra1 Ra8 8. Nb1 Nb8
(*) the only (very theoretical) difference is that a sequence like Nc3 Nc6 Nb1 Nb8 etc is a draw by repetition one half-move earlier.
You have to retrain since alpha relies on machine learned ‘instincts’ to play. In the same ways humans would have to re-discover how to play the openings with this variation by playing a lot.
Removing castling makes chess a less defensive game.
Or a game which takes slightly longer as castling occurs artificially over a few moves
“Maybe I will push this pawn....... someday.......”
“Tomorrow at 2:30 PM it is.”
I am always amazed by how he memorises all the moves
He has the moves listed in a pgn file in the second screen.
I'm reminded of the quote from the movie Wargames.... "the only winning move is not to play."
😋 #AlphaZeroIsDeadSC
4:20 "Developing the Rook"
This was me when I was a kid
Vlad retired but google called so he joined as Alpha's second.
This is the game that the Pixar grandpa played against himself
"I can do this all day"
"Yeah I know"
Can't tell when he's showing Alphas moves vs when he's making his own moves.
He demonstrated how these moves could alternatively play out from the same position and explained each time that AlphaZero saw these as bad moves. If you were actively listening it wasn't too hard to follow.
I've recently found this channel and am really liking it, but that is a problem. It's just not always clear when he's following the game and when he's running through a possible set of moves. As a novice that loves the game, the channel is very interesting, but much more geared to high-end players.
And it is as of move 1 that we have a completely new game.
Alpha Zero: 'Mirror mirror on the wall, whose the best engine of them all?'
Mirror: You are twins, dummy.
Eventually alpha will get so strong that it will offer a draw on the first move because it sees all of this.
Will get so strong that will analyze opponents and will be able to predict how many moves needed to checkmate him
If chess ever becomes a solved game, then Alpha will eventually offer a draw on the first move, if the a perfect game is drawn, or Alpha will calculate how many moves until forced checkmate, if a perfect game is won by either side.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 Don't think alpha zero actually calculates all the lines or any lines at all. It just automatically knows only the best next move for every possible position (assuming its trained for long enough) so it doesn't actually need to go into depth as for examples stockfish does.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 Actually, Stockfish calculates about 800 million moves per second, And still loses about 9/10 matches against alpha zero and put in mind that alpha zero calculates about 800 thousand move per second. So putting this in perspective, we can clearly observe that the engines calculate useless lines which can look like a sacrifice for them and keep going in the useless lines more and more. while a human brain can notice that this move is useless without analyzing the whole board and all moves till a checkmate. Even tho, an engine is always gonna be better. Who knows after neuralink of elon musk, we may have a chance to beat alpha zero, one day
alpha: what do you see?
alpha: everything ... that's my curse ...
alpha: draw?
alpha: (sighs) okay
"...and here Queen not captures on h1"😂 Agadmator is creating some new chess notation
Congratulations. No “sorry about that” here
Sorry about that
When watching this game I am reminded of a quote by Bird about Steinitz. Take the pieces off the board and them in a closed bag, shake them vigorously for 2 minutes, and then drop them all back onto the board from a height of 2 feet. This is the playing style of AlphaZero
Even Stockfish 8 would ask them: Guys what the fock are you doin?
"Even"... stockfish is nothing compared to Alpha
Stockfish has been getting much stronger so we will see. Although I am sure Alpha has also improved a ton but as far as I know new versions are not being released .