AlphaZero's Attacking Chess 

That made me laugh 🤣🤣

😂🤣😂

alpha zero makes worthy sacrifices, does necessary evils.

alpha zero is all seeing, alpha zero is utopia

When alpha zero started playing Starcraft, he literaly killed his units, to make room for another....everyone was little bit scared, imaging Alpha ledaing actual armies..

Your comment made me actually laugh out loud. Thanks for that.

Ok. The MacReady defence, that worked..(The Thing,1982)

Hahaha, love it.

Awesome haha.

@@evolveofwow jajaja SAME

Jamesons...likes The Thing...cheating bitch

Yeah... Sometimes you just have to sacrifice material just to open up your opponent's kingside. EVEN QUEENS!!!!

AlphaZero: pawns are worthless, peasant. You merely adopted chess, I was born into it. Molded by it. How could it favor you.

that's my greatest fear haha

Lol

yeah may be you are. But we humans aren't cause this alpha shit is made by us

Chimpanzee with an inferior short-term memory.

I don't see any proof that you can talk

True, but I like this feeling.

If make you feel better, alphazero is just a bunch of sand that can play chess.

LOL

xD

It's true. :D That's how neural networks work.

AlphaZero : Have i won ?

We are not there yet. But lmo

I read this in his accent lmaooo

Osas this your name burst my head .finish !! hahahaa happy to see my fellow benin man quoting Agadmator

@@Scriabinfan593 same haha

And uh, this position is totally winning for white

Call your name

AlphaZero: You can keep them

well A0 is not an engine. It's a Neural Network so SF is still the strongest engine

@@abdqs853 "In computer chess, a chess engine is a computer program that analyzes chess or chess variant positions, and generates a move or list of moves that it regards as strongest. " Alpha Zero can do this, thus is a chess engine, among other things.

HAHAHAHA ! You killed me xD

@jyloup85 so it took Stockfish 12 attempts to get where Alpha got in zero?

SF: "You're weak" SF: "I'm you"

hahhahahahaha

Lmao

Needed space for the b2 a2-b1 c1 setup

@schindler91589 Humans : (pikachu's meme face)

I guess you missed the significance of the White pawn on H7. Phillidor is still correct.

Alpha zero sacrifices the soul(pawns) for Absolute control and Complete Domination

@@Ceeewolf and you missed the joke...

@@Ceeewolf I was just joking ;)

She is a retired Chess player, streamer, RU-vidr, can speak Hungarian, Spanish, English. She is one of the bestsoft spoken person I have seen in my life. 😊 Enjoy.

I concur. I'm just starting out in chess and most videos are way too fast. These videos are perfect and you never get flustered, lol. A real joy to watch and listen to.

e6, g7, h4, moves to A3 to sacrifice G6 easy to understand if your a chess player but if your a normal person this ain't even english! god damn elitist chess douchbags 😂

I agree with you. I also think her English is easier to understand than others.I'm also a non English speaker

It's called Hungarian accent. I always said that we speak much clearer English than the English.🤣

:-))

Lol

King: developing projectile vomiting Queen: developing explosive diareah.

@@dominicsellers1813 and very aggressive one

Interesting is, my Stockfish 11 on a normal computer plays also 21. Kb1 (with the evaluation 0.00, so eval even that black ist 2 pawns up).

humans cant play like this, thats why they dont. they can improve theory by watching these games but will never play this calculated

@@gergogaal568 I dont know about that. I think most players now and days rely too much on memorising defenceve stratagys and all the quick win moves amongst other things. Theres verry little originality in play style now and days.

NO. Pls don't. Very few humans can convert a position that a program sees as "winning".

me: *my goals are beyond my understanding*

Jotaro: By now, I have finally learned to play the game.

@@luizquevedo6580 hahahah

He is a fish

yep, easy to do DeepTroll when you can see few moves more than your oponent

Your analisys is excellent!!

Stockfish: Give up the Knight. ALphaZero: Rg1 Stockfish: ** Surprised Pikachu face **

I think this is the wrong game, because it violates all the foundations of chess, I think we must sue the creators of AZ0

Hot babe

Under every wholesome comment lurks a creepy one. One truly has to admire the tough skin women on the internet need to have.

so typical of humans....trying to find water on Mars wasting a billion dollars in the process while being disrespectful of the abundant water sources on earth. Typical of humans.

@@vvenkat111 the reason to find water on mars Is to use it later on In conolies In mars, no to bring it to earth. And yes, earth is a paradise, but our chances of extintion are pretty high, if we colonize mars. those chances goes to 0

@@v44n7 0 is a little low i think

Pretty sure our chances of extinction is exactly 1 no matter what we do

@@thoughtsofapeer extinction looking a distinct possibility with covid panda (;-)) Our death is made in China too ;-)

not going to work ...it will just sacrifice it and win

Counts for humans too :P

"Cheating bitch..."

This works for humans as well. We are immune to non-alcoholic beer tough while he isn't.

just unplug the damn machine and you will win

HEY!! Thank You!! I find the A.I. games very fascinating! I just watched the "AlphaGo" movie, and while I do not know the game "Go" very well, I DO know chess quite well. The thing for me is that I realise the machine has several advantages over the human brain in terms of speed, and THOROUGHNESS of analysis, processing, and calculation. This ultimately places the Gen.A.I. in a whole different class. This is why I fail to understand WHY some people actually get upset and or offended by the powers of the machine when they are defeated "IT". BTW Why are YOU struggling with the irrelevant gender of "IT"??? It is an IT, gender has NO Meaning here!!! LOL!! Anyway, I enjoyed this video. Thank you again. Oh BTW, do you know how I might obtain a good chess program for my P.C.? Free or pay no matter.

Maybe we should stop using words like "sacrifice" as a descriptor. A move is a move is a move. Nothing more.

Do not apologize for calling AZ "he." However, it would have been way more badass if you called AZ a "she".

I am very impressed with Alpha Zero's performance at the chess board!! Thank you for sharing.😄

@@CyanBlackflower Chessmaster9000? If u like older chess games..♛..Black queen is white though..😒))

underrated comment bro! Nice to meet you

Damm that's exactly what i thought...

yeah, but hella slowly.

Perfect metaphore! 😆🤘💀🔥

If ur funding the enslavement and slaughter of animals, you are an animal abuser

so do i

Who doesn't?

I know a bunch of people who talk about Alpha Zero like he's their favorite high school crush.

And the rest of the world on Anna.

@@michaelfortunato1860 You took the words out of my mind.:)

@@Duduvianna3 interesting. To be honest, when writing this, I was thinking about the kind of opponent used to train a0, which would have been anyway a traditional style (dare I say "brute force with strategy" calculator), of the same type as StockFish. So, maybe not StockFish itself but an opponent that plays the same?

Eduardo Vianna what I think is really interesting is that in the learning process there are multiple Ai instances of a0 playing each other at the same time. And there is this phenomenon that in certain badges of AIs that play each other certain metagames form where one of the AIs learns to prefer a strategy that is strong against what the other AIs in their badge plays and strongly overvalues that strategy because it wins so much with it. So the fact that A0 tries to learn to play on its opponents weaknesses has to be and is controlled for in order to make A0 learn the games instead of learning to play its oppenents.

Eduardo Vianna Eduardo Vianna no, from my understanding it‘s not that easy. just trusting that the natural probabilistic distribution let‘s THE strongest strategy come out on top would create loops and hinder learning. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eZCI7zu_DlM.html check out this video from the 25:50 minute mark. It’s about the deepmind AI for Starcraft, but I am pretty sure this problem occurs in every highly complex game. The problem is that every strategy depends on what your opponent does and there are many different possibilities to act. That means that there is the problem that some sort of rock paper scissors situation developing, where strategy 2 beats strategy 1 and most instances start playing strategy 2 until strategy 3 gets discovered that wins against strategy 2 but loses against strategy 1. To prevent that the instances get caught up in a loop with no real learning progress, that cycle is disrupted by introducing instances that play a certain way every time and don‘t evolve in order to make a0 remember that it has to be able to beat those strategies as well even though they are not as popular within the other a0 instances. I agree with the second point. The learning happens within a* itself, although games at the top level are used to initialize the instances. They are basically used as some kind of starting point for the ais to develop from.

Eduardo Vianna mind to share the link?

Eduardo Vianna Eduardo Vianna the paper you linked does not go deep enough into the process of how deepmind implemented the self-learning in a0. Moreover it refers to the algorithms implemented by Ago0 unless stated otherwise. hackernoon.com/the-3-tricks-that-made-alphago-zero-work-f3d47b6686ef This blockpost about Ago0 however specifically mentions multi-task learning with hard parameter sharing, which is pretty much what I mentioned above. On the deepmind website, there are also papers that deal with exactly this topic so I am still not sure where you take your confidence from that this common problem in ai self learning suddenly was not relevant for a0? And yes, they did not use external agents to overcome the problem I mentioned, but that is also not what I said. I said they used external games by top players to initialize their agents which is mentioned in the beginning of the video I linked.

Peter Tench congratulations on your sobriety

You never stop being a chess player it's like riding a bike. You just take a break from it

Insane. It was literally watching black squirm around until it felt it was the right moment to attack. This goes against everything I have ever learned about tempo.

it's like the matrix when morpheus talks to neo in combat training

@One Blue Boi Building a nuke isn't actually that complicated, getting the materials is the hard part.

It shows how much a computer can learn. Not we.

@Nathan Sindlinger No, it's not. Neither design for basic fission devices it particularly hard to understand. It *may* be going a bit far to say you could build it in your basement but with the right person I'm sure it's doable. The problem is that the best way to get enriched uranium or plutonium is as byproducts of nuclear fission and building a controlled nuclear reactor is a much more complicated process. I'm not aware of marketplaces where the general public can just buy lumps of barely subcritical weapons grade uranium and plutonium, but if they exist I will stand corrected.

Should be careful. One company is setting out to ruin backgammon with the AI info. They deduct blunders from the score and say winning the game is not enough?! 😂 That's going too far when the whole point is to win the game

You really did that??

Nice😂 guess somebody learned from his mistakes

Stockfish learns from played games, unlike Alphazero. After this game is in the database it'll remember the better moves

yeah that's what i also find so interesting about these leela zero and alpha zero vs engine games.. this friggin ai's play these engines like a gm an amateur.. the engine is trapped in its own position with no way of getting pieces into the game.. they don't care about any chess principles and somehow gain advantage due to some seemingly weird and pointless move and then bam 35 moves later they are getting the upper hand because of this.. the positional game of these ai's is so incredible.. and then you realize this is fucking stockfish they play against.. an engine so strong it plays every human like a fiddle with ease.. an engine you will never win a game against within your lifetime if you play against the strongest version..

To win in chess you need to checkmate the enemy king. The fact that we value the other pieces is just an assumption we made. AI engines don't make those assumptions.

@@charimuvilla8693 Or has it assumed that the opposition will do or has been programmed to do exactly that and then plays that knowledge back against it?

@@Honeysucklebommie It should be possible to train an "anti-stochfish" AI but after seeing how positionally alpha plays I don't think that's the case.

All after being shown the rules for the first time just four hours ago.

I concur 100%

literally watching this while lying in bed to sleep xD she's so soft spoken, it's really nice to listen to her.

Oh god so true. All through the game im thinking "just like Morphy". A0 is the pride and pride of chess.

Absolutely haha

Just so you're aware, the newest chess engines, including Stockfish 12, would wipe the floor with AlphaZero, but that doesn't take away from the incredible achievement of AZ, and the amount of data that chess engine developers were able to take away from what AZ accomplished, and used it to strengthen their own chess engines. Of course, AZ was never a chess engine, and has not made any attempts to keep up in that department, it was simply a stepping stone for them in the grand scheme of machine learning.

@@joshs7160 thanks for your reply, I totally agree Stockfish and chess engines are in general extraordinary human achievements, and now Stockfish is also partly an AlphaZero achievement. We’re clearly walking into a completely new era not only for chess but for science overall.

+@c b Let's just agree to dissagree on that one. Human games are interesting exactly *because* of our flaws.

Alpha Zero is improving them but there is no proper explanation for the novelties

+@c b My point is that it makes sense because when a human wins we win *despite* our flaws achieving greatness. How good a computer performs is completely and utterly irrelevant to how much chess players should be paid. A human can inspire other humans as we can emulate them and achieve the same things as they can. You can never become a machine however. At least not with current technology. Your comment don't make sense in my mind till human-computer interfaces reaches a point where we can freely transfer our minds too and from a computer and fully utilize a computer wirelessly with our mind. And even then chess might be interesting with such a interface turned off and played with our regular flawed pieces of meat.

+@@solomonlubega8337 Several of the novelities makes sense to at least *some* humans looking at the games. We're going to see more players emulate the best parts of AI play and traditional engines slowly adopt more and more of those into their code base till they reach parity.

@@Luredreier So you think the engines can fight back ... from this? Bring it on!

;)

Rawr!

Always retreat. You forgot that one.

You with the right answer

Terry Leddra incorrect

Hot babe.

A game with Portisch has a such story.

Fischer 20-0 sequence with players from top 15 cannot be measured with Elo. His last three years were 100+30=8- with top players while playing reckless to win with a no draw mentality.

🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Why was this so funny Lmaooo

I love her sexy smile, her brain, her everything !!... ;-)

most awesome chess voice since yasser seirawan !! ^^

her voice is feminine, sweet, innocent and persuasive. it is very soothing, she could put a baby to sleep by whispering lullabies in their ears.

@@jackriver1999 well said !

Deffo, I'd like a nosh as well!

Lol

No

a logical conclusion, since we do no good to anything. besides inventing sth that solves us.

Lolll

GENIUS!!

Stockfish: Life should be planned carefully to be most fulfilling AlphaZero: IF YOU HAVEN'T SUFFERED OR FELT THE RAIN POUR AS YOU LAUGH, HAVE YOU TRULY LIVED?

Yes, it was sublime.

amazing restraint

thanks for the explaintionment

@@CandidDate Explanation is the right word, not explaintionment (that word doesn't exist)!

@@theUroshman haha

Megamind Blue how many hours have you wasted?

@@manit77 Prolly 100+

lts not waste if he learns something from it ignorant kid

@@ausar3852 I've been watching such videos forever but I never seem to learn.🙁

@@megamindblue1732 True. Videos are a form of passive learning, hence learning with a book and board along with many pauses in the between to check the position out for yourself is the best way to study. Do not waste your time watching videos.

Rather than "theories," AlphaZero has *intuition* built up by trying things repeatedly, and recording what did and did not work. It does not attempt to distill this into a rule set you could explain or communicate - it just "knows" what to do. Here's a summary article (though it would be nice if they described the "policy network" in part 2): www.chess.com/article/view/how-does-alphazero-play-chess

@@James-nr9gm Good article, thanks. I believe I read the second part, but not sure I read that first one.

I agree !!!!

Only half joking.

Hopefully it sacrifices you first....or maybe you could be the final one sacrificed, so you get a front row seat to the extermination of half your species.

Sacrifice the tall pawns

How would you know I am human?

@@albinorhino6 You're just a specist.

Anna more comments, please?

Isn't chess already a game about being Stalin?

@@milanstevic8424 I think Bobby Fischer said something to the tune that yes it's basically a game for egoists that want to prove something.

Thanks for helping us enjoy this video.

Great point, Mark! I think we can and should learn from the AlphaZero way of seeing chess!

A0 to me is like a human GM that played chess for thousands of years and has gotten to the 3600 level. Of course it just played against itself for 8 hours to get to this level lol

@@AnnaRudolfChess its more likely to learn to play like A0 than SF. A0 was modelled after human brains, after all.

I wonder if the human concept of a value system assigned to chess pieces is a result of capitalism ( everything on the planet is a commodity and has a value based on utility & scarcity ). Therefore humans have a flawed understanding of the game of chess by virtue of the economic system that we live under. I have an exciting idea... in Russia they start chess training around age 5 or something? For the next generation of chess players, remove the concept of a value system from the lesson and we can have some crazy chess games.

@@MrAgmoore All economic systems are value systems, thats what economic means. The value of pieces changes depending on the position. Alpha zero assigns values at a much higher level then the general principles we teach beginners. You talk like adding values to pieces is bad for the game, when thats literally how A0 learned. The values you're thinking of are just general basic principles to help out beginners. Economics has nothing to do with it wtf is wrong with you. Try teaching a 5 yr old how to play the game without telling them that they should usually value a rook over a knight, because in most games a rook will be more powerful than a knight long term. But no you're right, because capitalism assigns value to things that fluctuate based on the situation of the world (just like chess pieces change in value depending on their relevance in a position) we've been playing chess wrong this whole time! A0 knows that a rook is more valuable than a knight or bishop long term, but it also knows when it can sack material for a different long term advantage. The basic principles of general piece value still applies to chess at the GM lv and the A0 level, but so do many other principles. And the higher up the rating ladder you go, the better understanding of all principles is grasped. Denying probably THE most obvious and basic principle of the game is just ludicrous. Jesus Christ man, how about you learn a little about the world

oh, man, you just remembered me that fisher died, I'm just now discovering some of his games.

@@mtomazza Oof, he died 2008

I wonder how well this program would play Fischer Random?

billfinger most likely similar strength of trained in it

The trouble with computers is that they don't know when to resign-Bobby Fischer

This is late... but its playing chess like it plays Go. its moves are designed to increase its potential to win if it plays perfectly, if it can increase its odds of winning by giving up pieces, it will since greater odds of winning is better then pieces. as people can see, it reduces the moves available to its opponent in any way possible, increasing its odds of winning, eventually as it plays out this results in the enemy having no place to move, or essentially 'checking' as many of their pieces as possible, which is sort of the point of the game. After seeing it play just this one game, its quite clear that its the correct/best way to play, but also the most difficult as its literally playing on a tightrope, if it were to screw up and allow pieces to escape, it could ruin its pin and result in a loss. its like playing with absolute confidence that you wont lose with every move you play, monitoring more pieces then seems to be humanly possible. It would be interesting to see alpha zero play halfway through the game if a human screwed up its game by moving a piece badly, what would alpha zero do? would it be able to recover?

@@jessiejanson1528 It's just incredible that moves like Kb1, throwing away all the extra time/tempo it had gained, where actually the most optimal moves it could've made. It's like it's some kind of sadist that just likes watching the opponent miserably fail to activate their pieces.

you can not compare an A.I. to a human player. humans are bound to make mistakes along the countless calculations of possibilities opening up. so it is advisable to use advantages and exchange pieces since you will mess your advantage up by overlooking some detail at some point. you can play like alphago zero if your game is without mistakes, flawless. but it isn't since you're human after all. try to play that way and get shattered.

Daniel Riccardo likes this.

I think you're wrong about that last sentence. Given equal computational resources and equal knowlege of chess principles a traditional chess engine would come out on top because it makes more efficient use of the computational resources. The strength of a NN on the other hand is that it can add new chess principles on its own without getting those hardcoded in by a human. In other words, we're likely to see a back and forward shifting of the "balance of power" between NNs and AIs in chess as chess engine developers work hard to catch up with the NNs. Each time they catch up in encoded chess principles they'll be ahead till the NNs discover some new principles the engines are unaware of.

@@Luredreier The engines are weaker than AI because they rely on human understanding of chess. Alpha is beyond our understanding but we can learn better from it than brute force calculation engines.

@@proflaxis6968 That's not a correct understanding. One could easily rebuild brute force alpha-beta on a tabula rasa basis with modern computers, with far less input of human expertise (certainly nothing that required input from an expert player), and you'd probably make some gains, too, but it likely wouldn't prove decisive. Even the "old school" programs like Stockfish are tuned using self-play and advanced algorithms from machine learning. But certain trade-offs between the domain of the static evaluation function and management of the search tree are built into the code base-especially around the issue of quiescence-and no amount of self-play can improve these choices, without the manual intervention of a competent chess programmer. This is why some people on the classical computer chess side of this regard the fundamental innovation from AlphaZero as the Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm rather than the neural network component. AlphaZero was _forced_ to adopt a fully general search algorithm, because there's no other way to fully automate self-learning. Now that MCTS has been proven viable at the very top of the heap, it's hard to say how much the old tradition might also be impacted. What you get from the old fashioned fast-and-dirty search trees is extremely good peripheral vision. You're rarely surprised by anything. (This was good in competitive chess, because it means you can't be sandbagged by clever preparation on the other side.) What you sacrifice is visual acuity on the primary lines. Your forte is to play solidly enough and never fall short of tactical excellence (capturing is almost always a solid move, if uninspired, so we saw a lot of that for twenty years). Leela, who is less well trained right now that the AlphaZero, already displays much of the same brilliance, but her peripheral vision is poor (due to her reliance on a narrow and slow search that's not yet fully mature) so she gets beaten by weaker programs far more than you'd expect for a program that sometimes trounces Stockfish decisively. With deep recurrent networks, the brilliance comes first, and the wisdom of years arrives later (this is also true of offensive-minded rookie defensemen in the NHL). Note how much emphasis you see in this video on AlphaZero's quiet moves. Leela hasn't got this trick yet-not to this degree-in the videos I've watched. But she sure shrugs off counterattacks (often at great material loss) to open up lines in an eerily non-human way. She's just raring to jump into the play-often to a fault. Compared to AlphaZero, she's the Karate Kid right now. Over time, it's expected that her inner zen will improve. She needs to augment her hyper-aggressive goal-crease directed style with just enough 360° peripheral vision to stay out of trouble (those blind behind-the-back drop passes that every gifted rookie short of Gretzky seems obligated to try out at least once per game). The legacy trap you cited is almost always dominated by cost-benefit effects. You _could_ go back and start over, tabula rasa, but it will be a long slog and dry spell before your new program can defeat your old program. The incentives for making this choice are rarely high. Especially when the programmers involved don't fundamentally believe that the legacy of human expertise is a particularly large problem; if tabula rasa Stockfish appeared likely to gain hundreds of rating points from the "purity" budget alone-fumigate all taint from those confounding narrow-minded human GMs-work along those lines would probably commence immediately. One of the reasons that Stockfish is so much more powerful than similar programs is that Stockfish employs a very carefully tuned and narrower search: more acuity, less peripheral vision. We observed that in this game, where Stockfish completely fails to see the central pawn push. Narrow search is potent, but risky. Of course, it's a huge win to have no human legacy at all (from either chess experts or chess programming experts). That's what Google sees in AlphaZero and the real reason AlphaZero exists in the first place. To reiterate: Stockfish could easily be rebuilt tabula rasa with no human chess expertise at all, and with modern computers you'd expect this to work out better, not worse (microwave ovens have more computing power these days than chess computers from the 1970s). But the re-investment of chess _programming_ expertise would be non-trivial, and merely erasing the negative legacy of human chess-expert tunnel-vision would not pay enough dividends to support a ground-zero rework on this scale. At least, not unless adopting MCTS at the same time changes everything on that side of the chess world, as well (without any contribution from deep learning or a neural network). Keep your eye on Komodo MCTS. Hybrid vigor could yet put traditional engines on a whole new track, all by itself.

@@afterthesmash Who wants to stick to black and white TV when they have seen colour? It seems obvious to me that Alpha sees at least three times further than the Fish. We humans, like Alpha, can see the long term benefits of early strategic decisions. Yes The Fish has excellent peripheral vision and can't be easily surprised but is fatally handicapped by its event horizon as Alpha is demonstrating. Its a shame Alpha can't explain its plans to us or how it comes up with them. But it is providing the best learning material ever produced so far. Hopefully our GMs can take it on board and get over the 3000 threshold.

You realize that traditional engines use AI right? Different algorithms and evaluation tools is all.

Can’t believe it took him two years to find out :(

Jeffrey Gold She’s not using the word in its sexual sense, but its meaning as “a precautionary or preventive measure”! PS check out KWVE.com- excellent Christian teaching!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophylaxis_(chess)

Agreed. Peter Svidler is someone else wiho has a very impressive grasp of English

Talk to native speakers as often as you can. Use the language you want to be fluent in frequently. Watch movies in the language you want to learn and use subtitles in the language too. All of these may feel like slow progress, but it is the fastest method that I know.