this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
32 points (75.8% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
3165 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
32
How well can LLMs solve chess puzzles? (github.com)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/technology
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Each LLM is given the same 1000 chess puzzles to solve. See puzzles.csv. Benchmarked on Mar 25, 2024.

Model Solved Solved % Illegal Moves Illegal Moves % Adjusted Elo
gpt-4-turbo-preview 229 22.9% 163 16.3% 1144
gpt-4 195 19.5% 183 18.3% 1047
claude-3-opus-20240229 72 7.2% 464 46.4% 521
claude-3-haiku-20240307 38 3.8% 590 59.0% 363
claude-3-sonnet-20240229 23 2.3% 663 66.3% 286
gpt-3.5-turbo 23 2.3% 683 68.3% 269
claude-instant-1.2 10 1.0% 707 66.3% 245
mistral-large-latest 4 0.4% 813 81.3% 149
mixtral-8x7b 9 0.9% 832 83.2% 136
gemini-1.5-pro-latest* FAIL - - - -

Published by the CEO of Kagi!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AFKBRBChocolate 23 points 8 months ago (2 children)

People thinking LLMs should be even serviceable at chess didn't understand LLMs. They really aren't problem solving applications. They're optimized for making responses to questions that look like what a response should look like, not for being accurate. That's really clear if you ask them for mathematical proofs. They will generate proofs that look like the right sort of thing, but they won't be correct unless they have the specific proof in their training data.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is obvious for people who understand the basics of LLM. However, people are fooled by how intelligent these LLM sounds, so they mistake it for actually being intelligent. So, even if this is an open door, I still think it's good someone is kicking it in to make it clear that llms are not generally intelligent.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate 1 points 8 months ago

Agreed, it's good to have these kinds of articles so people get a better feel for what tools like this are and aren't.