Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

Grandmaster-Level Chess Without Search

https://github.com/google-deepmind/searchless_chess
I did a talk about this! (And also wrote up about my talk here[1]). This paper is a great example of both knowledge distillation. It's less of a paper about chess and more about how complicated non linear search functions - complete with whatever tuning experts can prepare - can be distilled into a (quasi-linear, if it's a standardized input like chess) transformer model.

[1]: https://hlfshell.ai/posts/deepmind-grandmaster-chess-without...

loading story #41874003
OT: what's the state of the art in non-GM level computer chess?

Say I want to play chess with an opponent that is at about the same skill level as me, or perhaps I want to play with an opponent about 100 rating points above me for training.

Most engines let you dumb them down by cutting search depth, but that usually doesn't work well. Sure, you end up beating them about half the time if you cut the search down enough but it generally feels like they were still outplaying you for much of the game and you won because they made one or two blunders.

What I want is a computer opponent that plays at a level of my choosing but plays a game that feels like that of a typical human player of that level.

Are there such engines?

loading story #41874461
loading story #41875558
loading story #41875345
loading story #41874316
loading story #41874396
loading story #41875758
https://lczero.org/blog/2024/02/how-well-do-lc0-networks-com...

The best neural network chess engine's authors wrote about this deepminds publication.

You can actually get solid performance with pretrained chat models: https://raw.sh/posts/chess_puzzles

On lichess puzzles gpt4o with the compiled prompt is around 70%, I think the 270M transformer is around 95%

I forget the rough adjustment factors, but it is worth noting that lichess Elo is not the same as chess.com or FIDE. I think lichess is typically ~300 points above chess.com.

This implies the model is around 2500 blitz vs humans. As blitz elo are often much higher than in classical time controls, 2500 elo on chess.com places it firmly in the 'good but not great' level.

I am very curious to know whether the model suffers from the same eval problems vs the well known "anti-bot" openings that stockfish is susceptible to at limited search depths.

loading story #41875461
loading story #41875357
From the page: "We also show that our model outperforms AlphaZero's policy and value networks (without MCTS) and GPT-3.5-turbo-instruct."

Why compare this to GPT-3.5-turbo-instruct? Is that near SOTA in this space?

loading story #41875394
what i would love is an engine that thinks more like a human. presumably since this uses stockfish annotated games, it basically ends up thinking like a computer. thinking like a human would be awesome for game reviews to walk through things to note in different positions (tuned to my elo).
Associated discussion on the paper:

Grandmaster-Level Chess Without Search

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301944

I wonder if you could creatively combine this model with search algorithms to advance the state of the art in computer chess? I wouldn't be surprised to see such a bot pop up on tcec in a couple years.
loading story #41873900
The thing is classical chess (unlike eg; go) is essentially "solved" when run on computers capable of extreme depth. Modern chess engines play essentially flawlessly.
loading story #41873728
loading story #41873853
loading story #41873731
loading story #41873911
loading story #41873743
Excellent work but I suggest a slightly different title:

"What would Stockfish Do?"

A more appropriate title; because Stockfish is a search-base system and DeepMind's approach wouldn't work without it.

Oh, btw, this is (yet another) a Neurosymbolic system of the "compiling system 2 to system 1" type.

This is missing a makefile to automate the manual installation steps