AI’s Grandmaster Status Overshadows Chess Scandal(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
AI’s Grandmaster Status Overshadows Chess Scandal
https://spectrum.ieee.org/magnus-carlsen-chess-scandal-ai
72 comments
There would be no point in keeping the human players around. You may as well just watch the computers play each other (which some people already do, occasionally). We’ve long since passed the point where humans can improve on the moves suggested by computers. The optimal strategy would be to just play the computer’s recommended move every time.
The reason we watch sporting events is to watch a fallible human attempt to control their body or mind enough to best other humans attempting to do the same.
No one will watch a competition between two self-driving identical Mazdas racing down the road.
No one will watch a competition between two self-driving identical Mazdas racing down the road.
>No one will watch a competition between two self-driving identical Mazdas racing down the road.
That depends entirely on how it is presented. Over 13 million people watched these inanimate marbles[1] compete in a variety of races.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2AbcCbyJ2U
That depends entirely on how it is presented. Over 13 million people watched these inanimate marbles[1] compete in a variety of races.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2AbcCbyJ2U
Marble races are fantastic, but not as good as the hotwheels races (3d botmaker diecast racing or something like that, the announcers are pretty funny)
~13m + 1, dammit!
This is satire, right?
Well if they're actually identical this seems like a stupid race.
But if the software is different, sure, why not? The Robot soccer leagues had a league where the platform is literally identical, all teams buy some Nao robots from Aldebaran Robotics, they have a coloured indicator so you know which team is which - but the matches certainly aren't like watching a mirror, if one team has programmed a vastly improved dribbling strategy or the other team's ball tracking isn't very good, it's pretty obvious who wins that.
Humans can no longer usefully assist chess computers. So all a human is doing is attempting to obey simple movement instructions, which isn't even a sport.
But if the software is different, sure, why not? The Robot soccer leagues had a league where the platform is literally identical, all teams buy some Nao robots from Aldebaran Robotics, they have a coloured indicator so you know which team is which - but the matches certainly aren't like watching a mirror, if one team has programmed a vastly improved dribbling strategy or the other team's ball tracking isn't very good, it's pretty obvious who wins that.
Humans can no longer usefully assist chess computers. So all a human is doing is attempting to obey simple movement instructions, which isn't even a sport.
[deleted]
I think lots of folks would happily watch a race between two different manufacture's self driving cars.
What kind of team work between a human and a machine would result in interesting chess? I hope it would reduce the need to study openings.
Something simple to begin with: let computers play the odd moves and humans the even moves, without any communication. This way, the computer would need to play in a way that would make sense to their team mate.
Something simple to begin with: let computers play the odd moves and humans the even moves, without any communication. This way, the computer would need to play in a way that would make sense to their team mate.
This is the format in a lot of tournaments where a pro is paired with an amateur. For example, in pairs snooker or pool, there are two ways to arrange pairs: Alternate innings and alternate strokes.
With alternate strokes, the better player will not only execute their shot, they will arrange to leave a shot that their teammate can easily make.
---
But all that being said, if such a game becomes popular, cheating will still be a thing as the team will always benefit from having the strongest possible human player.
With alternate strokes, the better player will not only execute their shot, they will arrange to leave a shot that their teammate can easily make.
---
But all that being said, if such a game becomes popular, cheating will still be a thing as the team will always benefit from having the strongest possible human player.
There's good reason to watch strong chess computers play each other! They can teach you some interesting techniques at the higher level (or so I've been told, I'm a lowly 1200 :P)
This is not true. There are chess leagues that allow unlimited computer assistance (most notably the ICCF, which organizes the World Correspondence Chess Championship), and you don't get anywhere close to the very top level by just playing the computer's recommended move every time.
Computers beat humans, but human+computer is still stronger than a computer alone.
Computers beat humans, but human+computer is still stronger than a computer alone.
There's been a handful of tournaments, but in the last one I can find[0] from 2017 an engine alone already beat all teams. Engines have only gotten stronger since then, so you'd have to use particularly bad engines or big limitations for humans to have useful input.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess#Online_tourname...
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess#Online_tourname...
I would have thought that, since I mentioned the ICCF as the most notable organization in computer-assisted chess, you would have looked into it before trying to contradict my claims. Evidently you did not.
The ICCF organizes matches, maintains rating lists, grants titles including grandmaster, and organizes a world championship for computer-assisted chess games. Check them out [1] and stop making claims about a style of chess that you are obviously not familiar with.
[1] https://www.iccf.com/
The ICCF organizes matches, maintains rating lists, grants titles including grandmaster, and organizes a world championship for computer-assisted chess games. Check them out [1] and stop making claims about a style of chess that you are obviously not familiar with.
[1] https://www.iccf.com/
If you want to reference an instance of player+computer games or tournaments where players+engines beat the strongest engines link to that rather than ICCF's homepage (who do allow computer assistence). Nothing on their homepage remotely proves your claim, and a quick search doesn't show anywhere they claim so, which is to be expected since you are simply wrong.
All that really happens in modern ICCF championships after the opening is babysitting engines and taking their top move(s). The human part is mainly picking and running the engine(s).
All that really happens in modern ICCF championships after the opening is babysitting engines and taking their top move(s). The human part is mainly picking and running the engine(s).
> Nothing on their homepage remotely proves your claim, and a quick search doesn't show anywhere they claim so
Because it's obvious to the community the website serves. ICCF having banner on their homepage saying "human + computer > computer" would make about as much sense as USA Track & Field having a banner on their homepage saying "Did you know running on your feet is faster than running on your hands?"
> which is to be expected since you are simply wrong.
This is a shocking level of arrogance for someone whose knowledge of the computer-assisted chess scene was limited to a Wikipedia stub a few hours ago.
There is a whole field of "anti-computer strategy" in computer-assisted chess. Humans study the weaknesses of engines to figure out how to exploit them in their opponents' play (and avoid them in their own play). Here [1] is an article discussing the general idea. Here [2] is a post by an ICCF player discussing why human+computer beats computer and giving an example of one of his own games. Here [3] is a a traditional chess GM discussing what the human player brings to the board in a computer-assisted chess game and warning against blindly trusting the computer. Here [4] is an ICCF world champion talking about how the human player steers the engine by feeding it ideas and avoiding positions where engines are known to have problems. Here [5] is another ICCF world champion talking about how his approach is to come up with ideas himself and then see whether the computer refutes them, rather than looking at what the computer suggests in a position.
Is that enough for you, or are you going to stubbornly continue to argue from your position of ignorance?
[1] https://iccfworldzone.com/cc-anti-computer-and-centaur-chess...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/4av9fe/correspondenc...
[3] https://www.iccf.com/Message.aspx?message=225
[4] https://en.chessbase.com/post/better-than-an-engine-leonardo...
[5] https://www.iccf.com/message?message=833
Because it's obvious to the community the website serves. ICCF having banner on their homepage saying "human + computer > computer" would make about as much sense as USA Track & Field having a banner on their homepage saying "Did you know running on your feet is faster than running on your hands?"
> which is to be expected since you are simply wrong.
This is a shocking level of arrogance for someone whose knowledge of the computer-assisted chess scene was limited to a Wikipedia stub a few hours ago.
There is a whole field of "anti-computer strategy" in computer-assisted chess. Humans study the weaknesses of engines to figure out how to exploit them in their opponents' play (and avoid them in their own play). Here [1] is an article discussing the general idea. Here [2] is a post by an ICCF player discussing why human+computer beats computer and giving an example of one of his own games. Here [3] is a a traditional chess GM discussing what the human player brings to the board in a computer-assisted chess game and warning against blindly trusting the computer. Here [4] is an ICCF world champion talking about how the human player steers the engine by feeding it ideas and avoiding positions where engines are known to have problems. Here [5] is another ICCF world champion talking about how his approach is to come up with ideas himself and then see whether the computer refutes them, rather than looking at what the computer suggests in a position.
Is that enough for you, or are you going to stubbornly continue to argue from your position of ignorance?
[1] https://iccfworldzone.com/cc-anti-computer-and-centaur-chess...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/4av9fe/correspondenc...
[3] https://www.iccf.com/Message.aspx?message=225
[4] https://en.chessbase.com/post/better-than-an-engine-leonardo...
[5] https://www.iccf.com/message?message=833
The first, and only recent (though without references and poorly written) link specifically says:
>Anti-computer playing is now irrelevant against engines as they can beat any human by the tactical strenght of standard engines or by the deeper evaluations of new neural network ones.
The second is a reddit comment which only implies they can maybe improved on a low-depth old version (lichess') version of Stockfish. Particularly unconvincing as an engine could also make progress even if it thinks it cant as more moves happen and it can see further, and as they tried multiple things, and then went back effectively just having their engine explore more paths deeper.
The third one is from 2008, when yes you could improve on strong engines consistently.
The fourth is from 2016, just before the 2017 breakpoint and possibly the last time you could improve on them.
The fifth one is from 2015. ditto.
There is a reason that there aren't links of say a team winning against the TCEC winner or anything solid proving your point.
>Anti-computer playing is now irrelevant against engines as they can beat any human by the tactical strenght of standard engines or by the deeper evaluations of new neural network ones.
The second is a reddit comment which only implies they can maybe improved on a low-depth old version (lichess') version of Stockfish. Particularly unconvincing as an engine could also make progress even if it thinks it cant as more moves happen and it can see further, and as they tried multiple things, and then went back effectively just having their engine explore more paths deeper.
The third one is from 2008, when yes you could improve on strong engines consistently.
The fourth is from 2016, just before the 2017 breakpoint and possibly the last time you could improve on them.
The fifth one is from 2015. ditto.
There is a reason that there aren't links of say a team winning against the TCEC winner or anything solid proving your point.
There was no "breakpoint" in 2017. Engines still don't understand conceptual insights that humans spot instantly: positions where it's impossible for either side to make progress even though one side has a large material advantage, fortresses, etc. AlphaZero was claimed to understand fortresses based on some (possibly cherry picked) games but they wouldn't give anyone unrestricted access to it and lc0 has not replicated that understanding. It's still easy to come up with positions that stump TCEC winners, where an experienced human will instantly understand that the position is a dead draw but the engine thinks one side has a large advantage. This kind of weakness is exactly what human players exploit.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for solid proof that running on your feet is faster than running on your hands. Why isn't this information anywhere on USA Track & Field?????
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for solid proof that running on your feet is faster than running on your hands. Why isn't this information anywhere on USA Track & Field?????
>In the meantime, I'm still waiting for solid proof that running on your feet is faster than running on your hands.
World record for 20m running on hands is 4.78s[0]. You can find plenty of <3s 0-20m from foot races[1]. That's how easy it is to prove claims with references when the claims are correct.
0. https://eu.indeonline.com/story/news/2021/10/05/zion-clark-f...
1. https://speedendurance.com/2012/08/09/usain-bolt-20-meter-sp...
World record for 20m running on hands is 4.78s[0]. You can find plenty of <3s 0-20m from foot races[1]. That's how easy it is to prove claims with references when the claims are correct.
0. https://eu.indeonline.com/story/news/2021/10/05/zion-clark-f...
1. https://speedendurance.com/2012/08/09/usain-bolt-20-meter-sp...
Mmmmm, sorry, that was before the 2022 breakpoint so I can't accept it as evidence.
I thought it was interesting thatcomputer vs computer chess is largely just ties. In order to make them more interesting tournaments usually start the computers with some pieces already moved to force them into unusual positions
TCEC, probably the most prominent long-form chess engine tournament, does exactly that. It starts them in a pre-played opening position, usually ~10 moves or so into the game. There are still a lot of ties, but fewer than if you let them play from neutral.
Each engine plays both sides of the position (white and black) so it's always a bit of a cool upset when an engine wins both the white and black side of the same starting position.
Each engine plays both sides of the position (white and black) so it's always a bit of a cool upset when an engine wins both the white and black side of the same starting position.
New chess variant: Cyber. Each player has a budget and can buy a limited number of moves from the engine throughout the game :D
Wouldn't that depend on if there is a time limit? It seems under time constraints, a human grandmaster aided by a computer would do better than the computer alone, since the human can also use heuristics.
I think stockfish with limited depth to compute every move in under .1 second would still be incredibly stronger than a human to the point where their involvement would produce worse moves.
You'd probably just optimize the computer for heuristics then, and would be faster than the human.
AI uses heuristics just fine. You might have missed the decades of post-Deep Blue development. Check out DeepMind.
Hm, ok what if we introduce time limits and also only allow the computer to use as much energy as the human brain does?
The results might surprise you:
An new iPhone can run the latest chess engines at a level that should beat all but the absolute best players (https://www.hiarcs.com/iphone-chess.html).
Apple doesn't publish power stats for their A-series chips that I could find, and I couldn't find a direct comparison of power draw running a chess engine, but Anandtec's numbers running synthetic benchmarks indicate between 3-5 watts when under single thread load: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-perfo....
Estimates for human brain energy consumption are vague, but generally accepted somewhere between 12-25 watts, with 20 being the most used average guess (https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-does-a-human-brain-con..., https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-cal..., https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/digitalisation/int...)
Given these numbers, not infeasible to assume that a computer restricted to the energy usage of the human brain would win every game when not playing Magnus?
An new iPhone can run the latest chess engines at a level that should beat all but the absolute best players (https://www.hiarcs.com/iphone-chess.html).
Apple doesn't publish power stats for their A-series chips that I could find, and I couldn't find a direct comparison of power draw running a chess engine, but Anandtec's numbers running synthetic benchmarks indicate between 3-5 watts when under single thread load: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-perfo....
Estimates for human brain energy consumption are vague, but generally accepted somewhere between 12-25 watts, with 20 being the most used average guess (https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-does-a-human-brain-con..., https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-cal..., https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/digitalisation/int...)
Given these numbers, not infeasible to assume that a computer restricted to the energy usage of the human brain would win every game when not playing Magnus?
Electric shocks are already happening (Magnus and David Howell): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzczVRvGOLs
"He's really going to feel that in the morning when the painkillers wear off" as the weightlifter (fake) tears his arms out from the socket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdG-iTilWU
RIP Phil Hartman, the greatest SNL actor of all time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdG-iTilWU
RIP Phil Hartman, the greatest SNL actor of all time.
Without Hartman, The Simpsons were no longer funny, and I stopped watching. I was lucky enough to meet him in 1994. He grabbed my girlfriend and kissed her, had to be there, but it was hilarious.
Kasparov created a version called 'Advanced Chess' that was a human & computer team. I don't think it ever took off though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess
If this article has a point, it fails to deliver it.
"Computers are better than humans now. They weren't before.
More articles for you: Water turns out to be wet."
More articles for you: Water turns out to be wet."
If that's the only point the article was trying to make, then it's about 15 years late.
Computers have been at 3000+ ELO on consumer hardware for a decade.
Computers have been at 3000+ ELO on consumer hardware for a decade.
Yeah, it's not great.
Apparently water isnt wet. It took me awhile to get over the wtf reaction. Basically because wetness is the ability of a liquid to coat, or soak into, a solid. and being wet is the state of being covered in a liquid. We're left with the surprising conclusion that unless we think of water as being water coated, or soaked in, more water its not wet.
I'm open to having my mind changed on this as I find it a bit ridiculous and will continue to think of liquids as being wet
Wetness is a property of the liquid, not of the solid. So, a surface is wet because it has a liquid on it, but the liquid is always wet.
It's like saying "blue things are things that are painted blue, but blue paint isn't painted blue, so it's not blue." Paint is the thing that makes the things blue, and is blue itself.
It's like saying "blue things are things that are painted blue, but blue paint isn't painted blue, so it's not blue." Paint is the thing that makes the things blue, and is blue itself.
But, in fact, blue paint is every other color but blue, which it reflects.
Yes, it's blue because it reflects blue.
Twisting of words there. Because it appears blue, conventionally we call it blue, even though the thing itself is anything but blue. That it appears blue ironically means it is not blue.
On the contrary, you're the one who's defining something being blue as the opposite of what it is. Things are the color they reflect, not the color they absorb. A thing that reflects blue is blue, how could it be otherwise?
The things are not the color they reflect, in the same way your position does not include the ideas that you reject, and the rubber ball that reflects off a wall is not that wall itself. Things are the color that they are, whether perceptible or not, but the color that is reflected eliminates that possibility for the thing's actual color.
Article ended really suddenly! A smartphone can crush any human alive but I was just getting excited for the difference in methods or something.
> just to force the opponents out of “book.”
I think that was happening 500 years ago. That change is subtle.
I think that was happening 500 years ago. That change is subtle.
What will happen when humans compete with chips implanted in their brain to augment intelligence ? Will there be categories for assisted and non assisted?
Seems like we're a long ways off from that giving a big enough improvement to matter.
I long for the day when the idea of enhancing cognitive ability with 'a chip implanted in the brain' is as quaintly amusing as starship captains using their slide rules to navigate.
> Still others raise an eyebrow at the large number of games he has played in recent years that get a score of nearly perfect from computer analysis.
This has been debunked (just google it), and this confirms for me that this is very shallow journalism.
It's also wrong - the charge was that his score was 'perfect' (100%) across too many games, not 'nearly perfect'.
This has been debunked (just google it), and this confirms for me that this is very shallow journalism.
It's also wrong - the charge was that his score was 'perfect' (100%) across too many games, not 'nearly perfect'.
I think that this is an early canary of what ubiquitous A(G?)I would mean. Human chess is basically like riding a horse now - a quaint nod to older times.
I disagree.
We don’t ride horses the way we did before because we now have transport and cars and trucks.
We still run and bike and gym. Sometimes to commute, and sometimes for fitness. Not everyone can be Usain Bolt, but the trails and tracks are full all week long.
We don’t ride horses the way we did before because we now have transport and cars and trucks.
We still run and bike and gym. Sometimes to commute, and sometimes for fitness. Not everyone can be Usain Bolt, but the trails and tracks are full all week long.
> We don’t ride horses the way we did before
There are more people riding horses than ever - it has become a hobby for the upper middle class, head to the exburbs of any US city and you will see lots of people who work in the city and come home to their horses every night.
Back before cars oxen were preferred for most tasks needing animal power - they were stronger and ate less food. Where speed mattered though the horse was better. Of course before the car people walked unless they were disabled - the horse/oxen were for pulling cargo or the plow, but either way you walked behind (it wasn't unheard of for the wagon driver to lead the team, though often they would sit on the wagon).
If you lived in a city (remember before tractors 95% of the population lived on a farm!) you probably didn't have any animal transport at all: they ate too much food. On the farm animal labor was useful, so if the farm could support it you would have it (many farms couldn't, and slaves were potentially more useful for the rest)
There are more people riding horses than ever - it has become a hobby for the upper middle class, head to the exburbs of any US city and you will see lots of people who work in the city and come home to their horses every night.
Back before cars oxen were preferred for most tasks needing animal power - they were stronger and ate less food. Where speed mattered though the horse was better. Of course before the car people walked unless they were disabled - the horse/oxen were for pulling cargo or the plow, but either way you walked behind (it wasn't unheard of for the wagon driver to lead the team, though often they would sit on the wagon).
If you lived in a city (remember before tractors 95% of the population lived on a farm!) you probably didn't have any animal transport at all: they ate too much food. On the farm animal labor was useful, so if the farm could support it you would have it (many farms couldn't, and slaves were potentially more useful for the rest)
Counter-point: there is a literal door halfway up the north face of Eiger, and it was there when Eiger earned its "Murder Wall" moniker by killing party and party attempting the first ascent. In one case four corpses were recovered just a few rope lengths from the door.
Quaint or not, people find meaning in their unnecessary efforts, sometimes enough meaning to bet their own lives.
Quaint or not, people find meaning in their unnecessary efforts, sometimes enough meaning to bet their own lives.
This confused me at first, but there's a train station (?) in the mountain and windows, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiger#/media/File:Fenster_der_...
Things we still have that don't make "sense":
1. Spelling bees
2. Horse races
3. Rifle competitions
4. Weightlifting
All of those could be won by a machine or computer and each one went through it's Casey Jones moment, and each is still being done.
For actual "work" the human aspect is often not used anymore.
1. Spelling bees
2. Horse races
3. Rifle competitions
4. Weightlifting
All of those could be won by a machine or computer and each one went through it's Casey Jones moment, and each is still being done.
For actual "work" the human aspect is often not used anymore.
I agree, those are all equally pointless.
Did people stop running in marathons when bicycles or cars were invented?
I don't think people started running marathons until after bicycles and cars were invented.
Yeah, cars predate marathons by about 10 years. The marathon sport was invented for the 1896 olympics, the first car was shown off in 1886 and sold commercially in 1888
I thought Pheidippides tragically invented the marathon in 490BC. The word comes from Marathōn in Greece where the Athenians defeated the Persians.
Well, I just went down a rabbit hole.
There seems to be a "reverse Balto/Togo" effect here. Pheidippides did NOT run the famous "Marathon".
Pheidippides ran the 150-mile journey from Athens to Sparta (and back: 300 total miles) and then died.
The "Marathon to Athens" 26.4 mile journey was another heroic messenger, but someone who was mistaken for Pheidippides. It seems very unlikely for Pheidippides to be the messenger because he'd have been tired (and/or dead) from his Athens / Sparta message.
There seems to be a "reverse Balto/Togo" effect here. Pheidippides did NOT run the famous "Marathon".
Pheidippides ran the 150-mile journey from Athens to Sparta (and back: 300 total miles) and then died.
The "Marathon to Athens" 26.4 mile journey was another heroic messenger, but someone who was mistaken for Pheidippides. It seems very unlikely for Pheidippides to be the messenger because he'd have been tired (and/or dead) from his Athens / Sparta message.
I am getting just a little sick and tired of all the ancient fake news.
That's why I said the marathon sport and not just running to/from Marathon :)
The bible mentions people running in a race. May not have been a marathon, but foot races were clearly known before bicycles and cars.
Like racing, we could have an Open/Unlimited class that lets humans partner with whatever, and a Restricted class which would be only stock wetware allowed.
If the chess world's aim is to play wholly as humans, it failed a long time ago. Engines control all modern GMs early play, with natural play only beginning when a player's memory fails. One of the ironies about the current scandal is that some of the most sanctimonious critics of cheating don't think twice when pushing out 20+ moves predetermined by the engine.
When will chess become a competition where players are wired into conspicuous super computers? Imagine: electrodes rapidly shocking the players, and it won't be uncommon to see players dying from cardiac arrest right in the middle of the game.
Niemann just needs to start a new league.
Stephen King probably wrote a book about that, I suppose.