By the way, would you say that Stockfish 15 understands how to play chess well?
Of course it’s a different question as to how exactly do humans understand chess.
I personally don’t believe humans have some sort of “special” intelligence, whatever we do must be computable and therefore doable by a computer. It’s just that todays LLMs don’t seem to be it.
related: https://parrotchess.com/
I've been thinking about this and I think there is a simple trick to make LLM's play chess well. Any chess position can be represented by a string, like so: rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 (Forsyth–Edwards Notation) If we think of a chess game as a sentence or a sequence of such strings or tokens, then after feeding tons of those to the model it is reasonable to suspect it will do what it does best, that is predict the next token. There is no spacial awareness or anything beyond that going on I think.
https://twitter.com/GrantSlatton/status/1703913578036904431
I have tested it myself.
1- unlike language where you can make an argument that maybe model had seen this example in the training set and just parroting it back, you can't really memorize the possible states of chess and thus you can be reasonably sure that any game or state it is in, must be OOD.
2- If the system still plays well with OOD examples, it must be gaining understanding of the game itself.
Also check out the Othello paper, where they show the evidence for an LLM encoding the game state in its neurons.
See this tweet.
https://twitter.com/GrantSlatton/status/1703913578036904431
I have tested it myself.
Meaning that for computer programs they're very bad at chess.