Yeah; I want to be careful and say that I don't expect a significant change in performance if they bump the hash size up; certainly there are diminishing returns. But if they hold up stockfish as the standard to beat, they should probably run it with recommended parameters. I'm amazed; it took them several years to do their Go work, but Chess seemed to just fall out of their AlphaZero work (I can't find previous publications on Chess by DeepMind despite Dennis' history with chess). This is clearly disruption; what's next? -tom On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Jeff Caldwell <jeffrey.d.caldwell@gmail.com
wrote:
FWIW, I queried David Silver, lead author of the paper referenced in a recent previous thread, about the seemingly-small hash size. I asked if they'd tried different hash sizes and, if so, what were the results. He hasn't yet replied.
Jeff
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Guy Haworth <g.haworth@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
Just as well I didn't ask Dennis H about Deep Mind and Chess last Friday!
The word on the chess networks is that Stockfish 8 was v short of hash-table allowance, and had no opening book or endgame table, whereas Alpha Zero effectively had an opening book 'absorbed' into its Neural Network settings.
While Deep Mind are clearly doing impressive, mould-breaking work, it would be good to see this experiment repeated under conditions approved by Stockfish's management and the ICGA (or TCEC) people.
My expectation is that, at the same tempo, the contest would be much more even with Stockfish differently set up. Nevertheless, at 'Classic Tempo', I'd still expect Alpha Zero to win.
Guy
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- -- http://cube20.org/ -- http://golly.sf.net/ --