Leela plays in a remarkably caveman style way || Highly evolved Leela vs Ethereal || TCEC 19

♚COURSES kingscrusher.t...
📚 kingscrusher.t...
FIDE CM Kingscrusher goes over a game where Leela plays in a remarkably caveman style way || Highly evolved Leela vs Ethereal || TCEC 19
📚 kingscrusher.t... || kingscrusher.t...
♚ Play turn style chess at bit.ly/chessworld
♚ kingscrusher.tv - register and I will invite you for a game soon :)
FIDE Chess CM Kingscrusher goes over amazing games of Chess every day, with a focus recently on chess champions such as Magnus Carlsen or even games of Neural Networks which are opening up new concepts for how chess could be played more effectively.
The Game qualities that kingscrusher looks for are generally amazing games with some awesome or astonishing features to them. Many brilliant games are being played every year in Chess and this channel helps to find and explain them in a clear way. There are classic games, crushing and dynamic games. There are exceptionally elegant games. Or games which are excellent in other respects which make them exciting to check out. Some games are fabulous, some are famous. Some are simply fantastic. This channel tries to find basically the finest chess games going.
There are also flashy, important, impressive games. Sometimes games can also be exceptionally instructive and interesting at the same time.
Info about Leela Zero:
en.wikipedia.o...
...
Leela Zero is a free and open-source computer Go software released on 25 October 2017. It is developed by Belgian programmer Gian-Carlo Pascutto,[1][2][3] the author of chess engine Sjeng and Go engine Leela.[4][5]
Leela Zero's algorithm is based on DeepMind's 2017 paper about AlphaGo Zero.[3][6] Unlike the original Leela, which has a lot of human knowledge and heuristics programmed into it, Leela Zero only knows the basic rules and nothing more.[7]
Leela Zero is trained by a distributed effort, which is coordinated at the Leela Zero website. Members of the community provide computing resources by running the client, which generates self-play games and submits them to the server. The self-play games are used to train newer networks. Generally, over 500 clients have connected to the server to contribute resources.[7] The community has provided high quality code contributions as well.[7]
Leela Zero finished third at the BerryGenomics Cup World AI Go Tournament in Fuzhou, Fujian, China on 28 April 2018.[8]
Info about Alphazero:
en.wikipedia.o...
AlphaZero is a computer program developed by the Alphabet-owned AI research company DeepMind, which uses an approach similar to AlphaGo Zero's to master not just Go, but also chess and shogi. On December 5, 2017 the DeepMind team released a preprint introducing AlphaZero, which, within 24 hours, achieved a superhuman level of play in these three games by defeating world-champion programs, Stockfish, elmo, and the 3-day version of AlphaGo Zero, in each case making use of custom tensor processing units (TPUs) that the Google programs were optimized to make use of.[1] AlphaZero was trained solely via "self-play" using 5,000 first-generation TPUs to generate the games and 64 second-generation TPUs to train the neural networks, all in parallel, with no access to opening books or endgame tables. After just four hours of training, DeepMind estimated AlphaZero was playing at a higher Elo rating than Stockfish; after 9 hours of training, the algorithm decisively defeated Stockfish 8 in a time-controlled 100-game tournament (28 wins, 0 losses, and 72 draws).[1][2][3] The trained algorithm played on a single machine with four TPUs.
...
Relation to AlphaGo Zero
Further information: AlphaGo Zero
AlphaZero (AZ) is a more generalized variant of the AlphaGo Zero (AGZ) algorithm, and is able to play shogi and chess as well as Go. Differences between AZ and AGZ include:[1]
AZ has hard-coded rules for setting search hyperparameters.
The neural network is now updated continually.
Go (unlike Chess) is symmetric under certain reflections and rotations; AlphaGo Zero was programmed to take advantage of these symmetries. AlphaZero is not.
Chess can end in a draw unlike Go; therefore AlphaZero can take into account the possibility of a drawn game.
AlphaZero vs. Stockfish and elmo
...
♚ Register at kingscrusher.tv and KC will invite you for a game!
♚ Or if you prefer bit.ly/chessworld
#KCChess #KCLeelaChess #KCMustSeeChess
❓ Any chess questions? www.quora.com/...
♚TEAM kingscrusher.tv...
♚TWITTER kingscrusher.tv...
♚DISCORD kingscrusher.t...
♚TWITCH / kingscrusher
♚REDDIT kingscrusher.tv...
♚QUORA kingscrusher.tv...
♚DONATE paypal.me/king...
♚COURSES kingscrusher.t...
♚COURSES kingscrusher.t...

[@dr.deepakgore1079]

One of the best game with fantastic idea by machine seen ,njoyed your streaming ,thanks KC

[@kbear8293]

Leela was just getting ready to play with her food then Ethereal II resigned. Was hoping for a bit of high level shuffling and a few random pawn sacrifices. Oh well.

[@joseraulcapablanca8564]

A fine attack fromLeela, but as you say castling kingside was asking for it. Tom Hanks is fantastic. Thanks KC keep up the good work

[@auggiedan]

Edward Norton is my favorite.

[@patrickdaly1088]

Keanu Reeves! He's very typecast in a lot of his roles but he does have real acting chops. He's also probably the most genuinely good person in Hollywood.

[@timmarshall4881]

That’s difficult a question as it depends on my mood. Probably Jack Hawkins.

[@MoonBurn13]

As a hopeless amateur, I think the one outstanding accomplishment of Ethereal here was to configure an opening that allowed the French Bishop - not just freedom but attacking moves. Living actors? Johnny Depp. Any actors? Brando, obviously.🙄

[@afterthesmash]

It's easier to name performances than actors. Those who have a special place in my heart-after discounting already lofty ranks on the IMDB list-would include Robin Williams, Sean Penn, Peter O'Toole, Clint Eastwood, Peter Sellers, Ian McKellen, Liam Neeson, James Spader, Steve Buscemi and Bill Murray. Among the actresses my special list would include Susan Sarandon, Jodie Foster, Kathy Bates, Frances McDormand, Teri Garr, Catherine Keener, Jessica Chastain and Edie Falco. Again, I'm deliberately leaving out the Dead Ringers such as Nicholson and Streep because the titans go without saying (and not just because I docked a 1000 points off each of their scores because of _Ironweed.)_ For deadly duos I'd have to add John and Aida Turturro (cousins) and John and Joan Cusack (siblings). Finally, Audrey and Katharine Hepburn would make for a great woke bishop pair-only one of them would have to settle for Eastern Orthodox, because they were never on the same page in either their real or acting lives.

[@tonysu8860]

A good game to comment on, but there is more to learn in this game than what was described in the video. Besides what was covered, - It's good to see games of high quality that confirm general theory, even if it's "another" game that proves what all should know. - The defense conceived by Ethereal was interesting as well although it wasn't enough against Leela's attack. The moves c5 driving teh Bd3 B off the diagonal pointing directly at the castled position followed by g5 to affix the g4 pawn in an attempt to make the White KB "bad" and not participate in the attack was interesting, and when that failed tried to create the same "interference" against the other B on the dark square diagonal, again failing. In the end, although all very interesting, general theory is not changed... Black may consider various defenses but castling K-side is not likely an option against a quality opponent.

[@TheAfroNoah]

Referring to Leela as a highly evolved caveman is funny

[@nunosousa4506]

Always nicer games!

[@paulbloemen7256]

A big hooray for the lack of opening book at just the right moment! Wouldn’t it be great to have a TCEC 20 with no prescribed opening book at all, leaving the responsibility for the choice of opening from right the beginning at move 1 to the players? Just to see extensively which moves are chosen by which engines, whether programmed, or preferably thought out by the engines themselves. Whether one sees the same games again, or those games all ending in a draw, remains to be seen, at least one would know the state of affairs, then.

[@robharwood3538]

Unfortunately what ends up happening (this has been tried in the past, and it's why they spend a lot of time on developing interesting openings for the competition) is that the engines, when faced off against the same opponent in a pair, end up playing virtually the same openings over and over and over, with very little variation. For example, Leela tends to steer games into the French, or similar mostly-closed, positional openings. So, the forced openings are a bit of a compromise, since the purpose of the competition is not just to determine which engine is best against the other engines under its _preferred_ openings, but under a wide _variety_ of openings. After all, one of the major uses of engines is for them to analyze human games, and/or to play against humans under whatever arbitrary positions the humans might want to practice against. So, to be the 'Top Chess Engine Champion', there needs to be some assurance that a variety of board conditions have been explored by the winner, and it has withstood and triumphed in the majority of those conditions.

[@robharwood3538]

There are lots of other tournaments without opening books, e.g. some of the Chess . com events have zero or one-move openings; I think some of the ranking sites like CCRL don't use any books; etc. So, basically, the 'state of affairs' is pretty well understood, too, for no-book games, and (perhaps not super-surprisingly) it's basically the same. There are some differences, such as Leela tending toward the French, and doing quite well in it, but overall it doesn't really affect the rankings much.

[@paulbloemen7256]

Rob Harwood Thank you very much for your answers, they are quite enlightening, and about the first serious ones on my complaints about the opening books used. I once wrote down a procedure to overcome the problems I have with them, still making sure there is enough variety. I placed it twice at this site, without any serious comment. I wonder what you think about it, and I apologize to Kingscrusher for placing it here yet again. I once thought about the following procedure, to be used for any pair of engines, like here engine A and engine B. Ask A which first moves it would like to play, say, within a 1% range of the top chance to win the game. Present these moves to B, and ask it for every move presented which answers it would like to play, again, say, within a 1% range of the top chance to win the game. Then go back to A, present it the positions B delivers and ask it which second moves it would like to play, within a 1% range of the top chance to win the game. Then again B, then A, until you have, say, 200 positions both A and B would like to play, A having White, B having Black. Quite probably there are no more than 4 moves for White and Black. Call this collection AB. Repeat the procedure for B having White, A having Black. Call this collection BA. When playing a match between A and B, choose randomly a position from collection AB when A plays White, and randomly from collection BA when B plays White. You then have almost always different openings in every game, and have openings both players have no real objections playing, quite probably would fit their style. And you would see openings both players would consider almost certainly correct, they would represent the "modern opening repertory". No need for suboptimal variations of romantic bad openings: these could be played during study sessions to look for refutations, not in a serious tournament or title match. I am sure with the aid of a dedicated computer program, all the collections needed could be generated very quickly, it could be done at the start of every tournament or match. You then have high quality games from the start, and all the variation you could wish for.

[@patrickdaly1088]

A few seasons ago for the TCEC post-season bonus match they did no opening book, faster time controls. IIRC Stockfish beat leela by only one or two games in the real TCEC superfinal, but Leela was like +7 games in the bonus match from the start position. That was when I started asking questions about "How fair are these opening books, if in certain positions, stockfish is going to win with both colors or at worst draw, and in others, the same can be said of Leela?" Seems to me the opening book selection could easily determine the winner.

[@paulbloemen7256]

Patrick Daly Great, thank you! I don’t know about all these matches and tournaments, your answer gives me a great boost. See my answer at this thread, where I propose a procedure taking away all the negative points of opening books, yet making sure there is enough variety. To me too, it seems the human made (human made!!) opening books are a kind of disgrace to these super strong AI engines, it is like me proposing opening books to be used in a forced way during a match Carlsen - Caruana: ludicrous!

[@piyushsharma5938]

Leonardo Dicaprio.....

[@caifan461]

Daniel Day- Lewis

[@markuscieslik7474]

One fav for me: Robert de Niro

[@robharwood3538]

That's a tough trivia question for me. I feel like no matter what I answer, 10 minutes later I'll think of some other actor that did a great performance that trumps my earlier answer. So, I'll give a couple answers, from different types of films, just for the heck of it: Buster Keaton for his pioneering physical comedy and 'straight man' or 'stone face' comedy. Jackie Chan for being the Buster Keaton of kung fu / action movies. Johnny Depp because of course. Gary Oldman for being able to blend into so many different roles, so convincingly, that you have a hard time even identifying him as the actor Gary Oldman on screen. Sam Neill, especially for his performance in Dead Calm (a highly recommended, much under-appreciated psychological thriller). And Guy Pearce especially for his performance in Memento. I could go on, but I think the YT NNs are probably full by now.

[@azarrezanejad5068]

Jim Carey is my favorite actor

[@Mrkontrol007]

Bob Odenkirk

[@mauijttewaal]

Nice:-)

[@nicholasperkins4655]

Never play the French against Leela! She has pretty much refuted it. William Hurt happens to be in 2 of my most favorite movies, Dark City and Syriana, but if you asked me what actor could carry a movie the best I would say Daniel Day Lewis. There Will Be Blood could not have been played by anyone else. Some say the same for Lincoln. Unbearable Lightness of Being remains my favorite of his though.

[@paulbloemen7256]

Nicholas Perkins So, never play the French against Leela. Yes! And the opponent is forced to play the French, even if “it” wouldn’t choose to do so itself in 1000 years if it would have its way. I think the use of prescribed opening books is plainly wrong! It is against the spirit of the game to decide for yourself how to defeat the opponent on the board, to steer the game in the direction, with the fitting style, you deem best. AI being so good, so much better than the best human beings, “understanding” the game maybe so much better too, how can it be that weak human beings should decide for a superior AI engine how to set up its game? Again, this is plainly wrong, and hampering progress in the process.

[@Bobby-fj8mk]

@@paulbloemen7256 - no it's not - both sides get to play the same starting position as White.

[@paulbloemen7256]

Bobby Yes, it is. The one engine may “like” tactical open positions, the other strategic closed positions, here it doesn’t matter if you play Black or White. A player should be allowed to look for positions it “feels” it is best at, it should not be forced to play one it doesn’t “like”. It is about a contest to find out who wins most often, not an exam where you have to show you know everything even if some knowledge is totally useless to you. Like, why should Carlsen be forced to face a possible King’s Gambit when he plays e5 against e4, if he feels he can produce an optimal result for himself by playing c5 against e4? I think prescribed opening books are rather ridiculous, and not fair to any player that knows how to hold his own within the opening repertory of his own choice. By the way: the rules of chess still prescribe the one standard starting position. Prescribing opening books are nowhere in the rules of chess, you could even see them as a mild form of Fischerandom.

[@Bobby-fj8mk]

@@paulbloemen7256 - Hi Paul - but the games would be boring as each computer would end up using its same favourite opening every time. I like the fact that famous openings are tested by computers. It gives entertainment and also knowledge to the chess world. You should complain to TCEC but I think they would use my arguments to counter you if they even bothered to reply.

[@paulbloemen7256]

Bobby Look at my post in this whole thread about a procedure to overcome this problem. It is far better than the forced use of an opening book. Being boring is subjective, by the way, nowhere is written that games shouldn’t be boring to some people. In the latest Carlsen match there were many boring draws, in my opinion. It’s part of the character of the game, I’m afraid. If you want always exciting at top level, try go.

[@sethoflagos2880]

Alastair Sim

[@Korovox]

Liam Neeson

[@RealCurrencies]

As a chess player/intelligentsia, I'm obviously way, way beyond the level of 'actors' and 'celebrities'. I don't get this recent 'against elitism' thing in chess. Elitism comes with the territory when using your brain, which obviously is not for by far most people. In my book, you're a celeb, haha.

[@u.v.s.5583]

She's a woman. A cave woman.

[@A_Swarm_of_Waspcrabs]

Neanderthal-ly evolved Leela uses giant stick in stunning attack.

[@palnagok1720]

Fave actor?__Any actor that refuses adrenochrome at Hollywood parties

[@davidspedding8349]

get rid of opening book

[@peterpetrov6522]

3:55 Yawow! G4? How childish