Science of Chess: The AI Revolution Hasn't Made Chess Better (yet!)

So, what happened to the Nile?

@NDpatzer ?

I don't know what you mean by the Nile.

@centavrvs said [^](/forum/redirect/post/tbIvCxlv) > > So, what happened to the Nile? > > @NDpatzer ? I don't know what you mean by the Nile.

NDpatzer

@medisynergi said ^

In order to be objective we need several more metrics than just elo. Tempo, tactical measures and positional context. Engines measure those differently from humans.

Apologies for not seeing this comment sooner! I agree that more metrics could be useful, but I disagree that it's more objective to include them. I don't see the use of ELO here as inherently subjective, but it does limit the scope of what we can conclude.

@medisynergi said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ABEqIUhM) > In order to be objective we need several more metrics than just elo. Tempo, tactical measures and positional context. Engines measure those differently from humans. Apologies for not seeing this comment sooner! I agree that more metrics could be useful, but I disagree that it's more objective to include them. I don't see the use of ELO here as inherently subjective, but it does limit the scope of what we can conclude.

NDpatzer

@Metagross31 said ^

Thanks for the interesting article!
As someone with a bit of knowledge of Go, the fact, that in Go there was a jump when the first Go-engine defeated the best humans, while in chess there was no noticeable spike, might have a reason.
When AlphaGo came around, it showed players, that some of their conceptions of good opening sequences (Joseki) were slightly off. Usually that was not by a lot, the masters of the past got them down quite well. But some turned out to be slightly better or slightly worse than humans believed for decades or centuries (e.g. the early 3-3 invasion versus star point openings). And even if they are maybe just 1 point or so off, being 1 point off a handful of times during the game can lead to an advantage, that professional players can convert to an advantage.
In chess however, the changes to high-end opening preparation were less drastic. Some variations might have fallen out of favour, but rarely did highly regarded openings completely disappear or completely new ones arrive out of nowhere. A Najdorf Sicilian or a closed Ruy Lopez were solid opening before and they still are after. The specifics in deep preparation might have changed, but at some point even super GMs come out of book and have to play the game instead of relying on computer assisted preparation.

Thanks for these insights! I have no experience with Go, so this is very interesting to hear.

@Metagross31 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/wUXmV5na) > Thanks for the interesting article! > As someone with a bit of knowledge of Go, the fact, that in Go there was a jump when the first Go-engine defeated the best humans, while in chess there was no noticeable spike, might have a reason. > When AlphaGo came around, it showed players, that some of their conceptions of good opening sequences (Joseki) were slightly off. Usually that was not by a lot, the masters of the past got them down quite well. But some turned out to be slightly better or slightly worse than humans believed for decades or centuries (e.g. the early 3-3 invasion versus star point openings). And even if they are maybe just 1 point or so off, being 1 point off a handful of times during the game can lead to an advantage, that professional players can convert to an advantage. > In chess however, the changes to high-end opening preparation were less drastic. Some variations might have fallen out of favour, but rarely did highly regarded openings completely disappear or completely new ones arrive out of nowhere. A Najdorf Sicilian or a closed Ruy Lopez were solid opening before and they still are after. The specifics in deep preparation might have changed, but at some point even super GMs come out of book and have to play the game instead of relying on computer assisted preparation. Thanks for these insights! I have no experience with Go, so this is very interesting to hear.

DIAChessClubStudies

Likely computers, chess engines, AI are going to show a hard limit of human cognitive potential. Certainly AI has advanced the understanding of chess, without improving human quality of play.

This is likely to be the case universally, human cognitive potential has hard limits, the computer, engines, AI, although likely have limits, in most fields will be exponentially higher than even all the greatest human minds together. What this means for chess? Probably nothing, chess was always a kids game meant to teach basic Karma, action-reaction, consequences one one's actions, morals ethics. Which human is better than another is of little significance.

Other fields that actually matter, like science, business, social networking, logistics, military equipment, humans resign to our limited mental capacity and utilize the superior cognitive skills of the computer, and largely accept the recommendations of the machine, even if we don't understand why. Chess is more difficult to work together with the machine, because chess at the end of the day is just a zero sum kid's game, where the most you can do with it is beat another human. As where the other fields where humans can utilize the machine's superior cognitive skills continue to advance at least the humans who utilize it.

Which might be a scary note, as the superior machine cognitive skills are utilized for military equipment and business, which are also mostly zero sum games, where the person who properly utilizes the computer's superior cognitive skills can win zero sum military conflict or business arrangements leading to personal enrichment. The machine in chess can at best be used to win at largely meaningless kid's game against another person who has some sort of false ego attachment related to winning at chess. As where the same technology of machine intelligence can win real battles with real world benefits on the battlefield and in the boardroom.

But blessings, thanks for the continued research. But have to put the benefits of getting better at chess into perspective, as opposed to understanding the limitations of human potential, cognitive ability, and the power of the machine and algorithm, and how to apply that. As of now, the power of the machine is mostly being applied to winning similar zero sum competitions to chess, but in military and business conquest. Although likely the technology can also be used to advance science, understanding, and human benefit, but chess as a zero sum battle with a clear winner and loser, might be little continued use other than for those seeking further victories on the battlefield and boardroom.

Likely computers, chess engines, AI are going to show a hard limit of human cognitive potential. Certainly AI has advanced the understanding of chess, without improving human quality of play. This is likely to be the case universally, human cognitive potential has hard limits, the computer, engines, AI, although likely have limits, in most fields will be exponentially higher than even all the greatest human minds together. What this means for chess? Probably nothing, chess was always a kids game meant to teach basic Karma, action-reaction, consequences one one's actions, morals ethics. Which human is better than another is of little significance. Other fields that actually matter, like science, business, social networking, logistics, military equipment, humans resign to our limited mental capacity and utilize the superior cognitive skills of the computer, and largely accept the recommendations of the machine, even if we don't understand why. Chess is more difficult to work together with the machine, because chess at the end of the day is just a zero sum kid's game, where the most you can do with it is beat another human. As where the other fields where humans can utilize the machine's superior cognitive skills continue to advance at least the humans who utilize it. Which might be a scary note, as the superior machine cognitive skills are utilized for military equipment and business, which are also mostly zero sum games, where the person who properly utilizes the computer's superior cognitive skills can win zero sum military conflict or business arrangements leading to personal enrichment. The machine in chess can at best be used to win at largely meaningless kid's game against another person who has some sort of false ego attachment related to winning at chess. As where the same technology of machine intelligence can win real battles with real world benefits on the battlefield and in the boardroom. But blessings, thanks for the continued research. But have to put the benefits of getting better at chess into perspective, as opposed to understanding the limitations of human potential, cognitive ability, and the power of the machine and algorithm, and how to apply that. As of now, the power of the machine is mostly being applied to winning similar zero sum competitions to chess, but in military and business conquest. Although likely the technology can also be used to advance science, understanding, and human benefit, but chess as a zero sum battle with a clear winner and loser, might be little continued use other than for those seeking further victories on the battlefield and boardroom.

Your network blocks the Lichess assets!