[HN Gopher] Show HN: Noctie - A chess AI that predicts your rating
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Noctie - A chess AI that predicts your rating
I built over the last two years a human-like neural network chess
engine that tries to predict your rating from a single game. It
automatically adapts to your play and tries to play like a human at
your level would play, giving you a balanced game. At the core I'm
using an AlphaZero / Leela Chess Zero style neural network that I
have trained on 1 billion human games from the lichess.org open
database. Around this network I have built a chess engine in Rust
with algorithms that use the outputs from the NN to produce human-
like moves at a given rating from beginner to world champion, as
well as predicting the level of the opponents play. I want to
develop this into kind of an AI coach that you can spar certain
positions against and get feedback suited for your level. Happy for
any suggestions!
Author : MereGurudev
Score : 101 points
Date : 2022-11-23 12:56 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (noctie.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (noctie.ai)
| rabidbathtap wrote:
| This is fun. No idea what my actual rating is but I may have
| found a bug: I won with checkmate playing white and a rating of
| 828 as anon. 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Be2 c5 5. Bd2 cxd4
| 6. Nxd4 Nc6 7. Nf3 e5 8. Bb5 e4 9. Ne5 Bd7 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. Be2
| Rb8 12. Nc3 Rxb2 13. Na4 Rb8 14. Nc5 Qb6 15. Nxd7 Nxd7 16. O-O
| Nc5 17. Bc3 Na4 18. Be5 Rb7 19. Rb1 Nb2 20. Rxb2 Qxb2 21. Bxb2
| Rxb2 22. a4 Bc5 23. Bg4 d4 24. exd4 Bxd4 25. Qxd4 Rxc2 26. Qd7+
| Kf8 27. Qd8#
|
| Played a few games and variation was between 828 and 1251, and in
| all but the 828 I received a good drubbing.
| zug_zug wrote:
| This is awesome. I've wanted something like this for a long time
| Komodai wrote:
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Mine has issues connecting to firestore. I can make as many moves
| as I like though, which is nice :D
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| I played a few moves and it seems the AI just stopped playing?
|
| This happened twice now (at move 3 the second time).
|
| I'm not sure it should take that long especially in opening
| moves.
|
| Is it doing _very_ deep analysis? Am I up against depth 40
| stockfish calculations here?
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Hey, sorry to hear that, the moves should usually be played
| very fast in the opening, and only up to 5-10 seconds in
| tactical situations, so I think you might have encountered a
| bug. Noctie does almost no calculation, just like a human, BTW.
|
| Was this in the rate-me page or as a logged in user? You can
| mail me with the e-mail in my profile if you'd like to help
| debug!
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| I ran into the same bug after doing a pre-move FWIW. Someone
| else also mentioned that the bug might be related to the
| speed of making moves:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33719934
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| This was in the rate me page.
|
| Yea it definitely took way more than 10 seconds.
|
| Nice peoject tho! I'm interested in how it'd rate me.
| T0Bi wrote:
| Had the same problem as well. Actually, I wasn't able to
| finish a single game since it always got stuck (took more
| than a minute to play a move) after a while.
|
| I'm using Chrome on Android and was only using the rate me
| page.
| register wrote:
| Ok, I am getting near GM estimation after I played some Scotch
| game theory that I know. To me it is extremely inaccurate
| xipho wrote:
| Was exactly correct for me, predicted Lichess within 10 points.
| Also agree with another poster who said they were waiting to get
| crushed, but managed a draw. Like it "pushed" just enough.
| lupire wrote:
| On mobile Firefox the zoom is shaky and halfway through the game
| it zoomed in and didn't zoom back out so I couldn't see the whole
| board for the rest of the game.
|
| The promotion menu disappears so I couldn't promote.
|
| It also draws wrong if I preemove a recapture and then change to
| a new move. More generally, it allows infinite premoves and
| crashes.
|
| Also, the clock is distracting, especially because the
| proportional font keeps moving the digits. Besides that, pretty
| good. And the colors are mushy and low contrast.
| incomingpain wrote:
| I estimate your FIDE rating to:
|
| 1176
|
| Ouch, I did beat the AI.
|
| I've played probably 10,000 anonymous games. My chess puzzle
| rating is currently around 2100, peak of 2400. Playing against
| stockfish 4 I can generally win every game. Stockfish 5 is hard.
|
| When I do rated games, I will crush each person in placements and
| usually get to 2200 or so before I lose the ?
|
| The last time I did a rating run. I won each game and placed at
| 1977. Then I went on a losing streak of 20 games down to 1300. I
| am playing 1300s which play like stockfish 5 or harder. These
| 1300s are playing ridiculously strong compared to stockfish 4.
|
| I wonder what I'm doing wrong.
| cjonas wrote:
| On lichess? I been hovering in at 1300+-50 for the last year...
| I can barely beat stockfish 2. I've found stockfish at these
| lower levels doesn't play like humans at all. It will play a
| near perfect game for 25 moves and then all of a sudden make a
| horrible and senseless move. If your style is slow and
| defensive I think you probably fair better. My style is hyper
| aggressive and stockfish crushes me :)
| myaccount9786 wrote:
| Just want to point out the obvious: if you are staying at
| 1300 for over 1y, you are not improving and likely not
| understanding why you are losing. I would recommend you study
| rather than banging your head against the wall by playing
| more games.
|
| Opening theory and tactics are a good place to start.
|
| An easy step is make sure you know a few common openings and
| have at least one response prepared to each. But also a good
| understanding of principles. Opening principles are more
| important, you can wing it if you don't know the theory.
| There are thousands of videos on YouTube about these topics.
|
| And obviously just don't hang pieces and take your opponent's
| hung pieces. At 1300 on lichess, your opponent will make a
| bunch of tactical mistakes which you can just take if you see
| them, after you can just win if you play solidly for the rest
| of the game. The way to study here is with puzzles.
|
| Sorry to patronize. I have played thousands of 1300's on
| lichess and improved after I sat down and studied. But I can
| tell you, if you're actually 1300 you are not strong enough
| in some of these areas.
|
| P.S. I don't believe the comment above yours. The dude went
| from 2200 to 1300??
| incomingpain wrote:
| >P.S. I don't believe the comment above yours. The dude
| went from 2200 to 1300??
|
| Like I could provide links to my games. I'm not a liar. I
| estimate I am a 1800-2000 player.
|
| The thing I don't seem to know, it would seem to me when I
| play against a 1300 who never makes a blunder or mistake.
| It then happens 20 games straight. They certainly play
| various inaccuracies, and I hold myself as well as I do
| compared to stockfish 5.
|
| In 1 game I was up 2 pieces and the computer didnt think
| they made a mistake nor blunder. >90% accuracy as a 1300...
|
| I guess, I'm missing some fundamental thing.
| myaccount9786 wrote:
| I don't believe anyone could be 2200 and fall to 1300
| because I am 1800 and I crush 1300s 99% of the time. And
| 2200s will crush me 99% of the time. How that decline
| happens?
|
| So you're saying that you could crush me but are getting
| beat by 1300s who anyone at 1800 could crush easily? F to
| doubt.
|
| Edit: for example https://www.318chess.com/elo.html.
| there is a statistical analysis of lichess data as well
| but it went down a few years ago.
| cjonas wrote:
| I think your just trying to be helpful, but ya it did come
| off as pretty patronizing. You've also assumed incorrectly
| that "getting better" is the most important thing when
| playing chess...
|
| I play chess because I find it fun, relaxing and a great
| way to blow off stress. Studying opening and caring too
| much about rating ruins that. Rated play is awesome because
| I always get paired with someone of similar skill. I do
| feel I'm improving slowly, even if my rating does change
| much. I like to mix things up and often play strategies I
| know are bad because it leads to fun and novel positions.
|
| And yes, I understand that I'm not a "strong" player. It's
| pretty obvious when lichess tells me directly I'm in the
| bottom ~30% lol.
| myaccount9786 wrote:
| Why complain about not getting better than 1300 then? My
| point is there are a lot of different levers to pull to
| get better and imo it's interesting to learn more
| tactics.
|
| The game does become more interesting as you get better.
| At least up to 1850 in my personal experience. At <=1400
| level the game is more like gambling imo, hoping opponent
| will fall into trap or miss a move.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >On lichess? I been hovering in at 1300+-50 for the last
| year... I can barely beat stockfish 2.
|
| Yes.
|
| Stockfish 2 is pretty easy, play solid and it eventually does
| something ridiculous to earn its lower rating. The trick, you
| have to see the mistake. Basically punches itself in the
| face, you have to survive until it does this. Make sure
| everything is defended.
|
| Stockfish 3 is when it starts playing reasonably and only
| makes a mistake when you've put enough pressure on it.
|
| Stockfish 4 you have to play against it. You need to see
| depth of about 3-4 moves for both of you and you should beat
| it every time.
|
| Stockfish 5 is hard, it's seemingly giving you tricks, but if
| you look at the trick its a crazy computer line where they
| manage to barely hold on or in most cases you shouldn't have
| taken what it was giving.
|
| >I've found stockfish at these lower levels doesn't play like
| humans at all. It will play a near perfect game for 25 moves
| and then all of a sudden make a horrible and senseless move.
| If your style is slow and defensive I think you probably fair
| better. My style is hyper aggressive and stockfish crushes me
| :)
|
| From my experience stockfish never plays like a human. I do
| recall there are some bots on lichess which were machine
| learning to play like a human.
|
| Alas I'm 1100 rated according to op.
| jkaptur wrote:
| Really cool! As a novice, it definitely felt approachable and fun
| to play against.
| lairv wrote:
| Wow I played a single game but the prediction was very good, it
| predicted 1636 on lichess while my best elo was ~1600 (though I
| haven't played for about a year)
|
| But what's even more impressive is that the game felt great to
| play, I didn't get this feeling that the AI would pick on every
| of my smallest mistakes like you have with Stockfish. I know
| there has been several research work [0,1] recently to improve
| the human-ness of chess AIs, but it's even more impressive that
| you are able to do it "online", in the course of a single game,
| bravo. I'd be interested in a blog post with details on the
| underlying algorithm
|
| [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.01855
|
| [1] https://openreview.net/forum?id=fJY2iCssvIs
| c22 wrote:
| I played e4 then Noctie ran out its clock. After that I used my
| queen to gobble up all of my opponent's pieces, then I used the
| queen to take all of my own pieces.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Perfect break entertainment
| register wrote:
| How does the prediction work? My estimation is probably 20%
| higher than my real rating
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| Same here, it also overestimated my rating by about 300 points.
| To be fair it was just one game, so that's already pretty
| impressive.
|
| Nitpick: "20% higher" doesn't work when talking about Elo
| ratings, since it's a system based on rating differences
| between players (i.e. subtraction).
|
| In particular, if two players are ranked _x_ and _y_
| respectively, that 's equivalent to them being ranked _x+k_ and
| _y+k_ for any value of _k_. On the other hand, multiplying
| ratings by a constant has no meaning.
| lepapillon wrote:
| I like the board UI and it's a cool project idea. Did you find
| any good resources on programming the board representation and
| identifying legal moves? There doesn't seem to be a standard
| library or algo reference that I've seen for such a common
| problem.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Thanks! For board representation and legal move generation I
| use chess.js in the frontend, and shakmaty in the Rust engine.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| It seems to be working again. It looks like something wasn't
| working out with my cloud autoscaling setup..
| myaccount9786 wrote:
| I wish against 1.e4 it wouldn't always play 1...c5. Right now,
| it's less of a test of "what is your chess rating" and more of
| "how much sicilian theory do you know".
|
| Its prediction was about 300 points low compared to actual
| lichess rating (1800). But online chess is very different; you
| see a lot of unsound openings that an engine wouldn't ever play.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| I think you were just unlucky with the opening! When I'm
| testing it's about 60/40 1...e5 vs 1...c5. The first opening
| moves should be quite close to what a 1600 FIDE player plays in
| online blitz.
| myaccount9786 wrote:
| Oh haha N=2 here, so you are probably right. Survivorship
| bias on my part.
|
| I posted these stats in another thread:
|
| According to https://lichess.org/analysis#1, for blitz and
| rapid games played on lichess with 1.e4, 1...e5 is 33%,
| 1...c5 is 25% and 1...e6 is 10%. And 35% is some other
| nonsense.
| myaccount9786 wrote:
| Does it use the frequencies from the lichess database? That
| would be pretty cool if it did!
| [deleted]
| garyrob wrote:
| An 1800 Lichess rating maps to 1420 FIDE or 1270 USCF. Not sure
| what standard is used by Noctie.
| (https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/)
| myaccount9786 wrote:
| Sure maybe the translation is wrong, but I'm saying there's
| bias in the test due to the fact it only plays sicilian to
| 1.e4. What about 1.e6 or 1.e5? Hard to estimate fide or
| lichess rating if you don't test those.
|
| According to https://lichess.org/analysis#1, for blitz and
| rapid games played on lichess with 1.e4, 1...e5 is 33%,
| 1...c5 is 25% and 1...e6 is 10%. And 35% is some other
| nonsense.
|
| Computer chess tournaments solve this problem by requiring
| the computers to play specific openings.
| [deleted]
| entropie wrote:
| > 638
|
| > Equivalent lichess.org rating: 965
|
| I like chess, I know i'am not good but it was nice to beat a AI
| once ;)
| sirfreedom wrote:
| Wow, my predicted Lichess rating (playing just one game where I
| made a stupid blunder) was eerily accurate (~50 pt difference)
| sireat wrote:
| Superb effort!
|
| It was a bit unsettling to play because as a human you were
| expecting to get crushed any moment but somehow I salvaged a draw
| on move 116. I've played thousands of games versus computer
| opponents (and tens of thousands versus humans).
|
| Rating estimates were off by 200 points, probably because I was
| too cautious. Real FIDE 2300 - estimate 2100. Maybe I am getting
| too old :)
|
| If the engine really becomes more human like it will be a big
| step forward.
|
| EDIT: 2nd game (after registering) was broken UI wise - could not
| move pawns 2 spots and many legal moves were not allowed, so I
| had to resign
| fizzynut wrote:
| I had to click the "back" and "forward" buttons 10+ times during
| the game for the ai to "play" a move while my clock got
| significantly lower. Highly frustrating. Seemed related to how
| fast I played a move.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| OK, sorry for that, the part with back/forward is very useful
| info for debugging though. Do you mind sharing what browser /
| setup you're using?
| fizzynut wrote:
| Win/Chrome, the clocks for both sides would be frozen if the
| bug happened then I had to press back, I often had to "redo"
| my move manually.
| alexmolas wrote:
| Super interesting! It would be nice to be able to warmup the
| initial score by importing your lichess games.
| fabiospampinato wrote:
| fwiw I got kind of different results, first time around 1800
| fide, second time around 1900 fide, third time, the only time I
| managed to win, around 1500 fide.
| danem wrote:
| Yeah, I've noticed that resigning earlier in the game results
| in higher ratings for me. Perhaps it's because I stop playing
| as accurately once I have a crushing position?
| thorncorona wrote:
| Very cool!
|
| FYI this sequence of moves leads to the AI timing out:
|
| 1. e4 c5 2. c3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. cxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Bd3 Bg7 7.
| Nf3 O-O 8. O-O Nc6 9. d5 Ne5 10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. b4 a6 12. a4 Qb6
| 13. Rb1 Ng4 14. h3 Nf6 15. a5 Qc7 16. Bb2 Bd7 17. Na4 Bxa4 18.
| Qxa4
| MarvinYork wrote:
| 1670 FIDE :D I wish...
| mda wrote:
| 2050 Fide, I wish.. It tends to over estimate maybe. Or needs
| more data.
| earthscienceman wrote:
| Another very positive comment here with a few grips. I love the
| way you used shadowing and color to create a board with a lot of
| depth. Interacting with the board is very very nice.
|
| My only major grip with it is the color scheme. As is often the
| case, you seem to want to add your own 'flavor' to the UI by
| having this almost post-apocalyptic color vibe... and as usually
| happens, it makes it more difficult to distinguish for people
| accustomed to the standard high contrast board.
|
| Another grip, the click to move that is standard would be very
| nice to implement. Dragging to move as the only option is an
| oversight.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Thanks for the valuable feedback!
| hellcow wrote:
| This estimated my lichess rating very closely. Really impressive!
| carl_dr wrote:
| Yep, same here. And the game seemed well balanced to my skill
| level until I blundered, at which point it beat me in short
| order - just as happens on Lichess!
| kennyfrc wrote:
| This looks great! I've played a couple of games in the Open
| Sicilian and the French Tarrasch and there wasn't a moment that I
| felt like I was playing against a computer. It plays some cheezy
| lines which I would expect from a lichess player.
|
| On the user side - I think the review area would benefit from
| principle-based analysis similar to what is seen in chess.com. I
| am guessing that for it to happen, there needs to be a separate
| analysis engine that can detect positional motifs. I think
| chess.com did a decent job with that (better and more actionable
| than decodechess in my opinion).
|
| On the tech side - I'm curious how this project differs from
| existing neural nets trained for lc0 such as bad gyal and maia?
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Thanks a lot, and happy to hear about your experience! Yes, the
| review mode is quite basic at this point but I hope to add more
| features soon, including some that are unique when compared to
| chess.com.
|
| On the tech side, what Maia is doing I think is similar to our
| NN component. It turns out to get realistic play (include
| randomness, avoid too many one-move blunders, same level of
| tactical play as positional play, realistic endgame play, etc.)
| you have to do quite a lot on top of that - much more than I
| initially thought. I have tested the AI over the last year with
| friends of different strengths to try to make the gameplay more
| realistic and engaging. I also think the automatic adaptation
| to your level of play, and predicting the rating, is unique.
| Bad gyal AFAIK uses a different training method where Stockfish
| evaluations is involved, but I haven't really tested it enough
| to know how it stands vs. Maia.
| thornewolf wrote:
| The AI seemed to have gotten stuck during my game with it. After
| waiting a few minutes I opted to resign.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Sorry for the bad experience, Noctie got stuck for a while due
| to a bottleneck in my cloud setup
| saberience wrote:
| Noctie never made a single move in my game.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Sorry for the bad experience, I had a service outage for a
| while
| dreamer7 wrote:
| I had a fun game. Was disappointed that the AI blundered a piece
| fairly early in the game. Overall, I felt I was not being pushed
| at all.
| tacitusarc wrote:
| It's very flatteringly, said I was about 1950 FIDE, 2200 lichess.
| I'm closer to maybe 1300-1400.
| EZ-Cheeze wrote:
| https://noctie.ai/walkthrough/public_55e0d2f7-d18e-42aa-a969...
|
| both the machine and i played with elan (reckless abandon),
| rarely thinking more than a few seconds per move
|
| crazy game that convinced me to sign up
|
| i love that it ostensibly tried to stalemate me at the end,
| that's what i'd do too and often draw back when i played chess
|
| i stopped because F** zero-sum games
|
| but against noctie i'm not releasing stress hormones into
| someone's brain so i can like chess again
| EZ-Cheeze wrote:
| https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/pgn/eCxDBoc6S?tab=review
|
| chess.com analysis
|
| accuracy 75.4 vs 70.6 so it did a measurably good job matching
| performance
|
| there is something very lifelike and appealing about an AI that
| blunders at the same rate as you
|
| best chess engine, good job
| coolness wrote:
| The computer seems to move very slowly, and gets much more time
| for each move than me. Is this intended, or is it because
| everyone on HN is trying it out? Might be some sort of client -
| backend synch issue.
|
| edit: the computer now flagged on my screen, but I did not get
| any message of a result
| blux wrote:
| Same here, computer flagged, nothing happens.
| underyx wrote:
| It was fine for me until I had forced mate in two. It took 3
| minutes to make the penultimate move and I'm still waiting for
| it to make the last move. In some way, this delivers perfectly
| on the promise of an AI emulating human players at my level.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| It seems one of my services has hit a quota, trying to find out
| which..
| mirzap wrote:
| Same happened to me. It seems quite buggy.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| The AI makes plenty of blunders (confirmed with Stockfish
| analysis), which makes sense in order to get a better estimate of
| the opponent's rating.
|
| As I was playing I felt like I had a definite advantage, which I
| did as it turns out. But because I was playing a computer I kept
| second-guessing myself as I didn't yet know it was programmed to
| blunder. I then managed to resign in a drawn pawn endgame - I
| wonder if this was used as signal to estimate my rating.
|
| It got my lichess rating right within 300 points after just one
| game.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Thanks for sharing your experience! It's a very interesting
| point about how you adapt your play based on the preconception
| about how computers play. The AI isn't programmed to blunder
| per se, it's more that I have tried to emulate a human
| intuition & thinking process - which is prone to blunders. So
| it never intentionally makes a mistake to test you, or to even
| the game out, it just tries to emulate your level of play.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| Thanks for the info, this is a great project!
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| I pitted Stockfish 14 NNUE against it (only giving stockfish a
| few seconds per move), it reported a FIDE rating of 2661 (lichess
| 2891).
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| Any idea why it thinks I'm so bad?
|
| https://imgur.com/a/d0WES5H
|
| Its way off (I range around 1200-1700 ELO depending on sober I
| wanna be when I play). I do play relatively eccentrically with a
| penchant for sacrifices and a insatiable desire for tempo and
| exploration of lines I am unfamiliar with but its still way off
| with its initial assessment.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| If the opening is rated as sufficiently bad, it would adjust
| its play accordingly and perhaps not challenge you sufficiently
| to be able to change its rating estimate. I.e. if you get a
| very easy, tactical game after that, the game might not be
| testing your abilities enough to revise the estimate from one
| game.
| hexwab wrote:
| I played a game, got my estimated rating (pretty accurate!), and
| a modal dialog box offering me the choice of "enter my email to
| create a account" or "forget me and play again". Immediately my
| heart sank. It's 2022, I have enough accounts on enough websites
| to last a lifetime and am super-sick of the whole "we've sent you
| an email, be sure to click the link to verify" dance.
|
| Most importantly, what I _actually_ wanted to do was get the game
| out and analyse it. But now the text was no longer selectable so
| I had to go grubbing around in devtools.
|
| Turns out the "forget me and play again" button just dismissed
| the popup and didn't actually start a new game but _I had no way
| of knowing this_ short of playing another test game in another
| tab.
|
| Suggestions: (a) don't use modal dialog boxes! Let me create an
| account in the middle of a game if I want. Let me copy and paste
| the moves at any time, including after the game is over. Don't
| have a button to "play again" if it's not actually going to play
| again.
|
| (b) asking for email addresses annoys the hell out of people. Let
| me play again without forgetting who I am. If I want my identity
| to persist across browser sessions then sure, let me create a
| username and password. If I want to be sure I don't forget the
| password, sure, let me tie it to an email address. But it should
| be step three, not step one. Otherwise people will just never
| come back.
|
| (c) " _excited_ ", "Thanks for the game", the eyebrows? It's a
| bot, it's not capable of excitement or gratitude or facial
| expressions. Pretending it is seems, well, patronizing. It's
| reminiscent of chess.com with its cutesy bots (and persistent
| nagging).
| catchmeifyoucan wrote:
| + 1 to this, I dropped my email, but I really don't want to go
| and verify it. I'm curious to know what I get after I login,
| because it's not immediately clear.
|
| Another option is to consider 3rd party OAuth like Google.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Good suggestions, thanks.
| porkbrain wrote:
| Well, that's flattering, got estimated 2173 FIDE.
|
| Unfortunately, wildly off, I was ~1800 FIDE even when I used to
| play. Will try a few more games to see whether that was a fluke
| or whether I should consider getting into chess again.
|
| All in all, great submission, thank you
| darepublic wrote:
| Good idea, was gonna share it with my friends but it's not
| working.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Sorry, it seems to be very slow right now due to some quota
| issue :( I'm debugging right now.
| bazillion wrote:
| I asked GM Minh Le (twitch.tv/gmminhle) to try it out, and he got
| a 2046 FIDE rating with 2306 lichess rating, after beating the
| bot. His actual FIDE rating is 2542 standard
| (https://ratings.fide.com/profile/12401153). His feedback was:
|
| -Why does the bot get +20 seconds every move and you get +5
| seconds?
|
| -It seems like you have to wait a few seconds before making a
| move before the bot gets stuck
|
| You can check out the VOD of him playing noctie on his channel if
| you want to see the full thing.
| porphyra wrote:
| I think these tools, much like IQ tests, are not that useful
| when you are super good and get almost every move perfect. It
| was fairly accurate for me who is around 1900 lichess.
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Hey, that's really cool, will check it out! The backend was
| experiencing some issues leading to laggy play by Noctie, I
| hope it's working better now.
| desmosxxx wrote:
| Very cool but noctie seems to be timing out now - worked fine for
| me the first two times.
|
| Does noctie treat the opening any differently when factoring in
| ratings. I had two very different estimes - higher one (2100) was
| from an opening line i knew and lower one (1500) I left the
| opening more quickly but I don't think I played a much worse
| middle game. I'm closer to 1500. [edit: from your other comment
| it does look like it takes the opening into account - I'm
| guessing as some sort of calibration - if you create an account
| does it use the results from previous games instead?]
|
| Also curios if this could theoretically be applied to historical
| games as well or does it require noctie to be a participant. I'd
| love to see an analysis of how player strength has increased over
| time. [edit: from your other comment it looks like it does
| require play]
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Thanks! Yes, the traffic from here exposed a few issues &
| bottlenecks in the backend infrastructure. I have resolved most
| of them and it seems to be running OK now (?).
|
| To answer your questions: Noctie takes every move into account.
| Especially in short games or very one-sided games, a lot of the
| rating estimate will come from your opening play. If you play a
| bad opening, Noctie adapts and you will get an easier game,
| which may lead to simpler positions where you have less risk of
| making a mistake that would lower your rating. So what opening
| you play definitely has a big impact when trying to judge the
| rating from one game only.
|
| If you create an account and log in, Noctie will accumulate
| information from several games to give a more balanced
| difficulty and more accurate rating estimate (and show how it
| changes over time).
|
| Noctie's involvement isn't strictly required for the rating
| estimate although it creates good conditions for it by making
| the game balanced, not dominated by time trouble or trying to
| flag the opponent, etc.
| yqsk wrote:
| It guessed my lichess almost rating exactly. Impressive!
| MereGurudev wrote:
| Thanks!
| segmondy wrote:
| Started timing out or not moving, once it was definite I would
| win. Not sure if logic search bug or scaling issues.
| lovehashbrowns wrote:
| Reaaaaaaally fun implementation! I enjoyed this much more than
| usual AIs I tend to play against as an extreme casual of the
| game. It put my lichess at 900, which is likely 100-200 points
| above what I'd really be. I'm gonna keep using this because it
| seems the difficulty is at the right spot for what I wanna do
| with chess.
| jhsinger27 wrote:
| cant be better than chess.com ratings!
| parspo wrote:
| I had fun. The AI stopped responding and I was able to capture
| all of its pieces in the confusion:
|
| https://i.imgur.com/g6R1FM5.png
|
| I didn't even know the rules of chess allowed for that, so I've
| actually learned quite a bit!
| jpalomaki wrote:
| Same problem, but I did enjoy the game.
|
| This feels like a great thing for beginners.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-23 23:01 UTC)