lichess.org
Donate

Is Alphazero only better than humans because it played more games?

Full original question: Why is it so hard for humans to learn from their own mistakes considering A.I. imitates the human brain? Is Alphazero only better than humans because it played more games? Or is Alpha0 better at learning from its mistakes?

My thought process:

It obviously has played more games and it sure has an impact.
...
Considering that A.I. imitates the human brain it should repeat mistakes too (not only learn).
...
It only repeats mistakes at the beginning, but it does not once it identified something as a mistake.
...
A.I. only copies the good things from our brain. A.I. has no strange or bad habits, is not stubborn or anything similar.
...
If we want to be like an A.I. we need to reduce our bad habits holding us back from improvement.
...
New Question: How do we reduce our bad habits in chess?
...
Maybe if we reduce our bad habits in chess we will do in daily life too.
...
Example: I keep playing Ng5 thinking everytime that this will be a great attack. My opponent proves me wrong in most cases.
...
I cannot ban the move completely, since it might be good in some cases.
...
New Question: How do we indentify when our "habits" are actually good? By playing a lot of games and looking for when it actually worked out? Unfortunately not at my level, because if it works out it is more likely to be a sign that our opponent played bad and would have nothing to do with the position. The stockfish evaluation also doesn't really help sometimes, since having +0.3 advantage can mean nothing if it is only +0.3 in case you play perfectly for the next 15 moves.
...
We need a tool to know how successful a move was in chess history. We have that in form of databases and opening books. But those probabilites are only valuable for that specific position, not probabilities on how successful the move Ng5 is in general - having certain other pieces or pawn structures on the board.

Final question: Do we have something like that?

Also I would be very interested in your thought process
What's going on?
[ ] It's annoying or not interesting
[x] I'm in this photo and I don't like it
[ ] I think it shouldn't be on lichess
[ ] It's spam
It's not more games, it's more "important" games. Alphazero knows to avoid playing the same games, humans just flip the burgers to pay the rent.
Alphazero just like stockfish , he remember every pieces position on the board real time. He is not scared in any position just like us human , he also don't value any material like how we do. For example a rook worth about 5 pawn etc. He simply sacrifice pretty much everything for a long term plan. And also he can calculate way more deeper than us human. If magnus can calculate 15-25 moves deep and then alphazero maybe can go 100 moves each variation that's why I don't see how human can play like alphazero. Somy conclusion he is better not only because he play more games
@GambitShift Okay right humans need to build up slowly because they would lose interest if they had to play their first 1000 games against stockfish 11.
...
I'll skip the thought process and just write what I just realised:
...
I learned to play moves that work out against weaker opponents, but do not against strong opponents now. My brain now learned that Ng5 is good, because against 90% of players I will win doing that. But against 10% it will fail. And all of the good chess players are in that 10%. So I learned something wrong it will be hard to get it out of my brain.

I think there should be rewards for playing good and not for playing good against other players, because this way it will learn to get better and not to beat others. That mindset might even reduce hate against others and fear to lose a game. I think there could be done a lot to realise that and it's nothing only machines can do. I remember solving mathematical problems - I felt joy without the need to compare myself to others. Why do we need that at chess, I really don't understand that rn.

@TheRazor01 yes you are completely right. Still humans can memorize a lot too, but I have the feeling that they 1. need more repetitions to memorize it and at the moment most are learning the wrong way and could do a lot better if they learned the way alphazero does (playing against strong opponents, reducing "bad habits" etc.)
"I think there should be rewards for playing good and not for playing good against other players"

Then why have a WCC? We don't have a real champion because Carlsen only won against Caruana. He beat Caruana. Carlsen did not win at classical.
@GambitShift maybe chess should start getting competetive at a certain level. Maybe at the point where you learned to distinguish between "dubious moves ?!" and "interesting ideas !?"
world championships have rapid tiebreaks since classical was drawn, and carlsen won the rapid he defends the title.
World championships also used to have adjournments. That's how Fischer got his title.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.