Unacceptable!

@@johnnylove2073 yeah, i demand my money back! Oh, wait...

We all appreciate you Lex, especially when you periodically pretend to be human by making convincing oopsies like this! :-)

I am still going to devour this so don't sweat it!

you did a great job with the overlays, thanks

@Luffy I think the gentleman was being facetious in his remark on AI

The ultimate goal was made by humans so that's fine.

@Luffy for a quick tangible benefit yes. Not for an abstract positional advantage that only becomes apparent 20 moves down the road. If you know chess, the alpha zero games really are pretty freaky

@Luffy if the AI goal is to save the planet, it would sacrifice humans, that's what he is saying.

If it makes you feel any better about AI, humans have already been sacrificing people and killing them without losing a night's sleep.

Blundering and sacrificing are two different things :)

LOL

What if there is superior chess engine in deep subconcious, and all that blunders are actually brilliant? They don't work, because our concious mind freak out when we lost a pawn and "screw you guys, I'm going home" after loosing queen?

@@josephpeeler5434 It's only a blunder if you give up.

It’s the most fascinating when I do it accidentally

It gave each side a clear win con

@@inafridge8573 not always a clear win condition though

Does anyone know how many points a queen is actually worth?

@@julianhodgson1961 9

Originally, the queen moved like the king. Chess underwent gradual gameplay adjustments over centuries, whereas StarCraft's underwent rapid play testing due to being a commercial product. The most modern chess innovation has come with online play, where time pressure is needed as a counter to cheaters. (Chess clocks were merely a means to prevent games from going too long.)

🧐, yes indeed! 😳

Hhh

They are just pawns anyways

Not any human, tho. It will assign a value to each one, and will sacrifice pawns to protect the overall plan much more willingly than rooks, queens, or even bishops.

AI: Joseph Stalin is the greatest leader throughout the world's history

Its weird i knew all of which you said(obviously) but i never really thought about it like that until i read what you wrote

@@drew4176 ya i never really thought about it until i saw this video too

You could say the same thing for pawns, bishops, and queens too.

Thats why I take out knights in rapid as fast as possible. Those things teleport

There is ego in chess but not about losing pieces specifically. Every beginner approaches the game with caution and is afraid of losing material balance, as, often, having less material leads to losing. Once you get more confident, you become less materialistic and start to see the profitable sacrifices and stop responding to every capture threat and look for a higher threat as a solution. Doesn't matter if you lose your queen if the move you make means mate in 2 or 3 moves...

I think the point of this video is the opposite from the point you got. Humans don't hold onto pieces for ego, but a lack of calculating ability (finding eventual compensation). The egotistical thing to do would be to make sacrifices. Chess players get boners over bold sacrifices.

Same, i mostly played when i was younger so id assume not much ego but i was always willing to do whatever i needed to to win

It isn't ego, its inability to play many lines many moves ahead and see how efficient a sacrifice is. I would also group castling.....when humans play they pretty much always castle whereas bots often dont castle and still win

I think theres a large fear aspect in castling. Humans seeing the indeterminate future think that castling can only be a good thing because of their fear of a decisive embarrassing loss due to the center opening up. The computer is unafraid of this and plays for the advantage regardless of position. I wouldnt say that humans castle because theyre incapable of calculating. Its more of a misunderstanding of the game and an aversion to risk embarrassment

I love bug house! Thanks for telling me that the mechanic originates with Shogi

@@MaLLinz289 I am not sure if bughouse was directly inspired by shogi or not, but this mechanic had a few centuries of evolution in shogi so it works much much better in it than it does in bughouse. Chess pieces are just too powerful for this mechanic and bughouse is just someone's little experiment with an already well formed game. I wholeheartedly recommend that you give shogi a shot. It's similar enough to chess for chess-fans to enjoy, but it's different enough that it gives a very different experience when playing.

Totally agree.....starcraft balance is very complex because there are 3 races and any change will impact say pvt differently than pvz; and now the game is mature enough and blizzard has not patched broodwar in 20 years so balance is done through maps not tweeks to the game. But with chess the biggest "balance" due to turn based vs real time. I guess balance would mean under perfect play it is a draw. But even that may not be practical balance since maybe quantum computers with near infinite elo (or even quantum computer who has solved chess) may be a draw (or even black win) but in human play white has advantage. Similar problem to starcraft where in the very top terran is arguably OP but at basically any level except top 10-20 players in the world protoss is consensus OP

The balance actually came from a sort of trial and error across milenia, it didn't came up naturally. But I do get your point.

AI knows Strategery !

That makes no sense. Pieces and pawns aren't given away for nothing. The point of the sacrifice isn't that the piece being sacrificed is useless. What is usually meant by a sacrifice is an exchange of material where one side loses on point count---a rook (5 points) for a knight (3.25 points), say. The sacrificing player reasons that he lost the exchange on points but gained space or time or an attack or long-term positional advantage.

@@josephpeeler5434 ultimately it's about checkmate,so if we accomplish it ny giving away as many pieces in a good combination,that is then a good sacrifice

@@sunset1394 But it isn't about "giving away" pieces. The sacrifice might be a minor for 2 pawns or a rook for a bishop. If there is a net point loss in the exchange sac, then the player sacrificing must get either space, time, attack or positional advantage in return. The sac is an exchange. It is not a give away.

If it could win without sacrificing the piece, it would.

which area in life?

Very unforgiving

yousiund like you are trying to talk like Lex

@@darwinn8333 nope

@@darwinn8333 getting good at anything is good for the soul

Especially coming from someone out of their depth on a subject. It would have been interesting to have someone like Ilya Sutskever on the opposite end of the table drill down into that response from Magnus.

Shots fired

True enough but probably only for elite players. I feel that for mere mortals like myself it really doesn't matter that much.

How many hertz I wonder

i disagree

That is almost impossible. As in, if you were to replace a given queen with a rook or bishop, the only way your position is better is if you were about to have some sort of exotic stalemate

Because he sucked

It was beautiful but not always sound

mostly speculative and risky, but super beautiful

I think what people are more interested in is sacrifices that give you sure shot advantages (at least with our present knowledge of chess). Tal's sacrifices, most of them were not like that. They are still great though because to do better would be extremely difficult for humans.

Tal was ahead of his time a true chess genius

Explicitly coding AI behavior is passe now. The neural net self-training AI blows the old school AI out of the water.

Eh? A self learning program that is better at the most fundamental aspects of the game, memory and calculation?

Did Bobby Fischer write this? 😂

FYI don't mention him around the community... It's Kool to say he wasn't good

@@AbcXyz-rn2lzI guess because of his controversial statements, though I'm sure he's not the only great chess player in history to have said or believed unpopular/unusual things.

There's plenty of people playing Chess 960 AKA Fischer Random. Not as many, but plenty

Yes, I think that is true. A paper I read indicated: Constant opening position and castling were negative to chess variety.

Shogi is hilarious. When you take your opponents piece you can air drop it anywhere *as your own piece*!. Makes for very powerful attacks and much more elaborate defences needing to be set up in advance.

@@jamesflames6987 Maybe we could combine to two into one game. Cheggi or Shoess

@@comic4relief “Cheggi” is essentially Crazyhouse. It’s very, *very* tactical and sacrificial.

It’s so complicated the damn human players are the RNG generators!

It's very interesting comment on the appeal of chess and he's probably right, however on the overall strategy, perhaps Shogi is superior as you suggest? I think I agree with both those considerations.

@@commentarytalk1446 If 2 rooks and bishops and queen were in shogi the game would end in checkmate very quickly I think.

Yeah. Suppose the chess with its explosiveness is just more Magnus's cup of tea.

He said he is noob in shogi

@@inafridge8573 In my experience each game tends to go a certain way in close games (broadly speaking of course) Chess: much faster arrival to middle game with good excitement that cools down into a drawish endgame with fewer and fewer pieces. Shogi: very slow maneuvering opening, but once middle game is in full swing it's usually a very sharp race to mate. This is due to clearing space but material always increasing after trades. So it's kind of picking where you want the "explosiveness" to be concentrated.

The queen used to be very weak but didn't move like the King.

What I read is that the Queen's origin was the "Minister" from Chaturanga, which could only move 1 square diagonally like a really limited bishop. But I also read that they are unsure about how some pieces were meant to move as a bunch of info go lost to history and thus have different interpretations. So maybe one was the queen moving like the king. Heck, maybe people then were just making their own variants like people do now and it's just hard to find the original rules for the pieces because they all intermingles with the same pieces given different powers. It's pretty interesting history though!

I would argue sacrificing pieces in top level games like it does is extremely creative in its own right.

No, that's easy. Creativity (in the non-artistic sense) involves generating new explanations and creating new knowledge from those explanations. AlphaGo and AlphaZero don't generate any explanations, they simply optimize for winning a game with simple, known rules. That's why no chess or Go players have gotten better from playing/studying these systems (actually, some have gotten worse). When an AI can create new explanations that actually add to our knowledge, then we can consider it to be exhibiting the kind of creativity we actually care about.

top chess players have definitely learned from engines. the assertion that no chess player improves from engine games is flat out wrong

@@vinesthemonkey it isn't - there have been just as many players that have decreased their ELO after playing AIs than have improved - no better than chance. But regardless, it still isn't the kind of creativity we actually care about, even if you think these computational statistics programs are creative. Creating new explanations is what matters.

@Pollen Applebee I wish I could be so confident just pulling stuff out of my ass

Stock fish wasn’t superior… in 100 games Alpha won about 40, and the rest were draws. It lost zero games to stockfish 8

Oh man I would love to see Japan get in to chess. I bet they would be a real contender on the scene.

Really? I didn't know that

Give a knight and a pawn for a bishop.

Yup! A bunch actually. That piece is called the "Amazon" and it's basic form is "Amazon Chess" where the queen is just given that knight movement for both sides. It may also be called the "General" in stuff like Giant Chess

I always described checkers as 'the art of sacrifice'. It was always about creating that one set up where you can sacrifice one for two, and then just going one for one until you've won.

Letting your piece be taken is called "sacrificing".

@@jamesflames6987 you have a point 😌😂👌 but what I was trying to draw attention to was the fact that computer devoid of emotional context doesn't see it like that. Precisely why it baffles the most advanced players we got. Just the fact that we choose to give it such an emotionally charged word "sacrifice" goes to prove my point. Computer looks at it as optimization, maximization, us humans "sacrifice" that stark difference is why AI player surprises human players. Hope it makes sense... Cheers.

​ @MMMM great point mate, that's really interesting indeed. In fact, when you think about it, how we value chess pieces is ultimately arbitrary and depends on our lack of computational ability. If you can perfectly calculate all the possibilities of a situation, you no longer need to consider that a bishop is more valuable than a horse for the value of a position; a human cannot foresee an indeterminate series of potential blows, and is obliged to say to himself: "well, I don't know where this will lead me, but I know that a bishop is worth more than a knight, or that 'one knight is better than two pionts'. The computer, on the other hand, knows precisely where it is going to lead such and such an exchange, and the one after, and this of course more than a human brain is capable of doing, and it does not have to think in the absolute, as we have to, but always relatively to a well-determined situation. He can therefore evaluate the value of the pieces in a completely contextual way, relative to the current position. And indeed, in certain cases, even a pawn, if it is well positioned and if it fits into a perfectly calculated computer plan, can be worth a Queen, most certainly. You don't need all ouf your peices to win, after all Excuse my poor english ^^

​@@Mag-Nuss I am glad the idea resonated with you, in addition to expressing it in terms of chess quite elegantly you have taken a step forward and made a profound statement about "value". Your point about the difficulties of determining value in complex situations is a crucial one that can be generalized to economics and society at large. As humans, we often have a hard time accurately attributing value due to our limited data and computational power compared to the infinite complexity of the real world. One could argue, to deal with this, we have developed cultures, codes of conduct, and social norms to help us navigate situations. So you could look at it as, everyone is playing someone else's winning hand trying to get a winning result while not knowing if the precise strategy will yield any positive outcome at all... So as you said: "Human can't foresee an indeterminate series of events", and I'd add that may be the reason why history is filled with tragedies and men made catastrophes because no one really knows precisely "the value", or the outcome of their next move...

how I agree with you ! The question of the value of things, of the cultural processes of valorization, is probably one of the philosophical problems that fascinates me the most; I could not be more intellectually delighted to find it here, linked to the pregnant question of artificial intelligence applied to chess. And the hypothesis that you propose, this rapprochement that you underline between our inaccuracy in chess and the tragic aspect of our historical political existence is very interesting, I must say that the idea is as beautiful as it is terrible. I'm going to think about it for a long time ^^

From every elo it’s the same, bishops are better at the start, both pieces are neutral in the mid game and horseys are better at end games.

@@Glock7eventeen it’s easier to take a queen or a rook with horsey than with a bishop at lower elos, forks aren’t as easily seen

camera died

Wait until you've dipped tangerine segments into a warm cheese sauce and served them to guests on cocktail sticks. Only then will you know what it means to be really weird.

Any chance of rewriting that in English?

That is how you evolve.

@@johanw2267 chicken and egg problem?

that's how it's supposed to be... why would anyone want to interview someone beneath them?

I prefer monopoly because luck is the only thing that would give me a fighting chance

Ah yes, let's reword the top comment to farm likes and feel good about ourselves!