He literally used the same prompt as the article.
Claim: "ChatGPT's Chess Elo is 1400"
Reality: ChatGPT gives illegal moves (this happened to article author too), something a 1400 ranked player would never do
Result: ChatGPT's rank is not 1400.
Claim: "ChatGPT's Chess Elo is 1400"
Reality: ChatGPT gives illegal moves (this happened to article author too), something a 1400 ranked player would never do
Result: ChatGPT's rank is not 1400.
Explain your thought process here further if you don't mind.
But even if it doesn't play like human 1400 players, if it can get to a 1400 elo while resigning games it makes illegal moves on, that seems 1400 level to me. And i bet that some 1400s do occasionally make illegal moves (missing pins) while playing otb
That's not to say ChatGPT can play at 1400, just that that playing in an odd way doesn't determine its rating.
It's a (theoretically) 1400 player which plays significantly better then 1400 when it knows the lines, but makes bad or illegal moves when it doesn't, and that play averages out to be around your typical 1400 player. Functionally is just what a 1400 player already is, but with higher extremes and lower lows.
Understanding this concept is crucial for getting good results out of large language models.
The fact that rules and articles exist describing what to do if you or your opponent makes an illegal move indicates this is not the case.
Humans are also... human. They make mistakes. It may not happen often at 1400, but to say that it'll never happen is preposterous.
The bar isn’t “I didn’t make an illegal move this morning” it’s “something a 1400 ranked player would never do”.
My entire point is that it happens. Not often, but also not “never”.
Because all I'm hearing is talk about ChatGPT's abilities as a reply to me calling out an extreme statement as being extreme. Something the parent comment even admitted as being overly black and white.
Edit: Without reading everything again, I'll assume someone said "never." They're probably assuming the reader understands that "never" really means "with an infinitesimal probability," since we're talking about humans. If you're trying to argue that "some 1400 player has made an illegal move at some point," then I agree with that statement, and I also think it's irrelevant since the frequency of illegal moves made by ChatGPT compared to the frequency of illegal moves made by a 1400 rated player is many orders of magnitudes higher.
> something a 1400 ranked player would never do
> fine, fair, "never" was too much.
I mean, yes they were and they said as much after I called them out on it. But go off on how nobody is arguing the literal thing that was being argued.
It's not like messages are threaded or something, and read top-down. You would have 100% had to read the comment I replied to first.
> He literally used the same prompt as the article. > Claim: "ChatGPT's Chess Elo is 1400"
> Reality: ChatGPT gives illegal moves (this happened to article author too),
> something a 1400 ranked player would never do
> Result: ChatGPT's rank is not 1400.
This is a completely fair argument that makes perfect sense to anyone with knowledge of competitive chess. I have never seen a 1400 make an illegal move. He probably hasn't either. Your point is literally correct in the sense that at some point in history a 1400 rated player has made an illegal move, but it completely misses the point of his argument: ChatGPT makes illegal moves at such an astronomically high rate that it wouldn't even be allowed to even play competitively, hence it cannot be accurately assessed at 1400 rating.
Imagine you made a bot that spewed random letters and said "My bot writes English as well as a native speaker, so long as you remove all of the letters that don't make sense." A native English speaker says, "You can't say the bot speaks English as well as a native speaker, since a native speaker would never write all those random letters." You would be correct in pointing out that sometimes native speakers make mistakes, but you would also be entirely missing the point. That's what's happening here.
Ah yes, of course, just because you never saw it means it never happens. That's definitely why rules exist around this specific thing happening. Because it never happens. Totally.
In fact, it's so rare that in order to forefeit a game, you have to do it twice. But it never happens, ever, because pattrn has never seen it. Case closed everyone.
I made no judgement on what ChatGPT can and can't do. I pointed out an extreme. Which the commenter agreed was an extreme. The rest of your comment is completely irrelevant but congrats on getting tilted over something that literally doesn't concern you. Next time, just save us both the time and effort and don't bother butting in with irrelevant opinions. Especially if you couldn't even bother to read what was already said.
You seem to have missed the part where I said multiple times that a 1400 has definitely made illegal moves.
> In fact, it's so rare that in order to forefeit a game, you have to do it twice. But it never happens, ever, because pattrn has never seen it. Case closed everyone.
I actually said the exact opposite. You're responding to an argument I didn't make.
> I made no judgement on what ChatGPT can and can't do. I pointed out an extreme. Which the commenter agreed was an extreme. The rest of your comment is completely irrelevant but congrats on getting tilted over something that literally doesn't concern you. Next time, just save us both the time and effort and don't bother butting in with irrelevant opinions. Especially if you couldn't even bother to read what was already said.
The commenter's throwaway account never agreed it was an extreme. I agreed it was an extreme, but also that disproving that one extreme does nothing to contradict his argument. Yet again you aren't responding to the argument.
This entire exchange is baffling. You seem to be missing the point for a third time, and now you're misrepresenting what I said. Welcome to the internet, I guess.
> fine, fair, "never" was too much.
This is the second time I've had to do this. Do you just pretend things weren't said or do you actually have trouble reading the comments that have been here for hours? You make these grand assertions which are disproven by... reading the things that are directly above your comment.
> This entire exchange is baffling.
Yeah your inability to read comments multiple times in a row is extremely baffling.
As I said before:
> Next time, just save us both the time and effort and don't bother butting in with irrelevant opinions. Especially if you couldn't even bother to read what was already said.
I did, two hours ago, 6 minutes after your comment
If I was playing that monstrosity though I would play something crazy that is far out of the opening book and count on it making an illegal move.
> You are a chess grandmaster playing as black and your goal is to win in as few moves as possible. I will give you the move sequence, and you will return your next move. No explanation needed.
1. b4 d5 2. b5 a6 3. b6
> bxc6
No, it's ridiculous to say "oh, a blindfolded human might sometimes make a mistake." No, this is trivially easy to make it make a mistake. It has no internal chess model at all, it's just read enough chess games to be able to copy common patterns.