i think this has everything to do with the fact that learning chess by learning sequences will get you into more trouble than good. even a trillion games won't save you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
that said, for the sake of completeness, modern chess engines (with high quality chess-specific models as part of their toolset) are fully capable of, at minimum, tying every player alive or dead, every time. if the opponent makes one mistake, even very small, they will lose.
while writing this i absently wondered if you increased the skill level of stockfish, maybe to maximum, or perhaps at least an 1800+ elo player, you would see more successful games. even then, it will only be because the "narrower training data" (ie advanced players won't play trash moves) at that level will probably get you more wins in your graph, but it won't indicate any better play, it will just be a reflection of less noise; fewer, more reinforced known positions.
> i think this has everything to do with the fact that learning chess by learning sequences will get you into more trouble than good. even a trillion games won't save you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
Indeed. As has been pointed out before, the number of possible chess positions easily, vastly dwarfs even the wildest possible estimate of the number of atoms in the known universe.
Sure, but so does the number of paragraphs in the english language, and yet LLMs seem to do pretty well at that. I don't think the number of configurations is particularly relevant.
(And it's honestly quite impressive that LLMs can play it at all, but not at all surprising that it loses pretty handily to something which is explicitly designed to search, as opposed to simply feed-forward a decision)
Since we're mentioning Shannon... What is the minimum representative sample size of that problem space? Is it close enough to the number of freely available chess moves on the Internet and in books?
> I think this has everything to do with the fact that learning chess by learning sequences will get you into more trouble than good.
Yeah, once you've deviated from a sequence you're lost.
Maybe approaching it by learning the best move in billions/trillions of positions, and feeding that into some AI could work better. Similar positions often have the same kind of best move.
Honestly, I think that once you discard the moves one would never make, and account for symmetries/effectively similar board positions (ones that could be detected by a very simple pattern matcher), chess might not be that big a game at all.
what's discouraging is that some of you are essentially implying that picasso should have sold himself as a service (make more art while alive) instead of doing whatever a once-in-a-timeline artistic genius needs to do to create priceless artifacts that, by the way, required the investment of his, and his family member's, lives to realize. when his works are equatable with the lyrics to "happy birthday" this might be worth revisiting; until then why don't you buy some art? http://fineartamerica.com/featured/copyright-john-muellerlei...
Actually not at all. I believe from all I have read about Picasso he would have been a productive artist even if no copyright existed - he was a great artist and creating art was at his core.
I actually buy a lot of art - I have long since run out of wall space to hang it all :) None of the artists I buy are producing art just for the money and copyright plays no role in why they are an artist.
> I believe from all I have read about Picasso
> None of the artists I buy are producing art just for the money and copyright plays no role
You seem to be presuming to know the motivations of every artist to have existed based on your personal experience. Is it so inconceivable to you that there may be someone who, let's say, is considering writing a book, wouldn't at all be motivated by how much money he could earn in return for the investment of his time? And take into account the fact that he could potentially sell the rights for considerably more, the longer copyright guarantees exclusive rights to the owner?
The value of lengthly copyright is basically zero to any rights buyer at the time of production due to the very high discount rate used in the arts and publishing industry. If it weren't zero then publishers would pay more to young authors than old authors. If you can find one artist that has ever said they create more because their heirs can live off the copyright 50 years after they are dead please show us.
The only value to retrospective copyright extension is to give a windfall profit to rights holders long after the artist is dead. It is outright theft of our cultural heritage.
Given the current way [Riak] index queries are expressed, I was reminded of the unfortunately named HTSQL; I'm not sure if I am fond of it or not yet, but I thought I'd pass along a few references as it bears some at least superficial similarity to what exists in Riak at the moment, and that may be of use:
