![]() GM Andrew Tang, along with an explanation of why Leela blundered.īut how come Leela blundered such a simple tactic? Looking at the chess clocks, we can see that Leela spent less than 0.1 seconds thinking before making the move. You can see similar tensions in the real world: humans only have a few babies, but some species (such as ferns) have lots of children, most of which die, but those that survive propagate the species successfully.įinally, one should note that Leela's neural network is not always right. The other, and the one that eventually came to dominate, is to search as many moves as possible. The first was to get computers to "think" like humans and consider only the best candidate moves. Remember several decades ago when computer chess was new, there were two ways to approach search. (This is of course simplified since it assumes there is a "right" move.)Īlso worth pointing out is that it is by no means obvious that selectively searching the "best" moves is a better approach than simply searching tons and tons of them. It means that Stockfish can afford to be wrong 4999 times as long as it searches the moves that are right. That's about 5000 times more positions per second. Comparatively, Stockfish searches ~200 million positions per second. In a typical position Leela might search 40k positions per second. Just check the latest TCEC superfinal between the two. Because Stockfish searches a LOT more positions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |