zlacker

No this isn’t likely. Chess has trillions of possible games[1] that could be played and if it all it took was such a small number of games to hit most piece combinations chess would be solved. It has to have learned some fundamental aspects of the game to achieve the rating stated ITT

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number#:~:text=After....

>>edgyqu+(OP)
It doesn’t take the consumption of all trillions of possible game states to see a majority of possible ways a piece can move from one square to another.

Maybe I misread something as I only skimmed, but the pretty weak Elo would most definitely suggest a failure of intuiting rules.

>>wredue+y6
no, a weak elo just indicates poor play. he also quantifies what percent of moves the model makes which are legal, and it’s ~99%, meaning it must have learned the rules

>>rmorey+vu
My kids also make 99% legal moves and don’t know much more than how the pieces move.

You’re really wishing a lot more in to AI than is actually there.

>>wredue+pF
So if not artificial, what form of intelligence have the kids reached and is it any more or less impressive?

Certainly a lot of folks wish more into kids than is really there.

>>wredue+pF
That's entirely my point: both your kids and ChessGPT know the rules, but still don't play very strongly. You say they "don’t know much more than how the pieces move" but that's exactly what the rules are, how the pieces are allowed to move, given the sequence of moves that have come before (i.e the state of the board.) I'm saying ChessGPT is a poor player, and didn't learn much high level play. But it definitely learned the rules!