Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

gogameguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 576 posts

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#121

Post by visarga »

tzs wrote: post #101
sidko wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing the way chess computers have evolved, this won't be far into the future. There are several tournaments just for chess computers, and it is very hard even for grandmasters to follow every more. Somehow, after a 20-move sequence that appears to accomplish nothing, one side is slightly up, and the rest of the game is decided.

> Seeing the way chess computers have evolved, this won't be far into the future. With chess, there were two breakthroughs. First, there was Deep Blue, which threw massive hardware resources at the problem and achieved world champion level play. That was interesting, of course, but didn't really do anything for human chess, because most humans did not have access to the necessary hardware. The second breakthrough was…

AlphaGo uses much simpler hardware for play than for training. I think the Go associations can afford to run the hardware.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#122

Post by justsaysmthng »

davelondon wrote: post #91

Let's compare Go and Chess. We all know that Go is more complex that Chess, but how much more? There's 10^50 atoms in the planet Earth. That's a lot. Let's put a chess board in each of them. We'll count each possible permutation of each of the chess boards as a separate position. That's a lot, right? There's 10^50 atoms, and 10^40 positions in each chess board so that gives us 10^90 total positions. That's a lot of p…

Why am I feeling a bit scared of all this ?

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#123

Post by ekianjo »

davelondon wrote: post #91

Let's compare Go and Chess. We all know that Go is more complex that Chess, but how much more? There's 10^50 atoms in the planet Earth. That's a lot. Let's put a chess board in each of them. We'll count each possible permutation of each of the chess boards as a separate position. That's a lot, right? There's 10^50 atoms, and 10^40 positions in each chess board so that gives us 10^90 total positions. That's a lot of p…

I am not sure that calculating the raw number of positions is a good indication of complexity at a given point. What if most positions are obviously junk in go while they are more difficult to assess in chess? Not saying this is the case in this particular example but thats a possibility in theory.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#124

Post by visarga »

dwaltrip wrote: post #10
mixedmath wrote: post #9

This game was largely played extremely well by both sides. There were a a few peculiar-seeming moves made by AlphaGo that the commentator found very atypical. These moves ended up playing a very important role in the end game. I should also say that it's somewhat clear that Sedol made one suboptimal move, and AlphaGo capitalized on it. Interestingly, the English commentator made the same mistake as he was predicting…

Center evaluation is hard for humans, but not for bots, it seems.

Endgame is also a strong point of AlphaGo.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#125

Post by lmm »

Cookingboy wrote: post #116

Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it. Throughout the history of many Asian countries it's seen as the ultimate abstract strategy game that deeply relies on players' intuition, personality, worldview. The best players are not described as "smart", they are described as "wise". I thin…

How soon we forget. Twenty or thirty years ago Chess was spoken of in exactly those reverent tones.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#126

Post by Jach »

0x777 wrote: post #11

Lee Sedol seemed to be doing well before he went into extra time (as far as I could follow from the commentators). How is it ensured that this is a fair game given the time constraints? I'm guessing adding more computing power to the AlphaGo program should definitely help it in this regard.

I find it interesting that AlphaGo seems to take a long-ish time to play the move every other pro would play instantly. These pauses probably help balance any time oddities. I think Sedol managed his time well, and even AlphaGo went into byoyomi near the end. Also the fact that it's on even time is more than fair, since the standard until now has been "go on, add more computing power, take more time to play a move, you'll still lose to a pro". As for AlphaGo, I kind of remember reading that doubling the computing resources at this point gave an increase in 60 ELO points. (So if they solidly win against all the Sedol matches they may need to double once or twice or find enough software optimizations to take down Ke Jie using standard time control, but it's not out of reach..)

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#127

Post by Yuioup »

Cookingboy wrote: post #116

Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it. Throughout the history of many Asian countries it's seen as the ultimate abstract strategy game that deeply relies on players' intuition, personality, worldview. The best players are not described as "smart", they are described as "wise". I thin…

I liken Go to a real-time strategy game. Essentially a game of StarCraft 2 can have an infinite set of 'moves'. When an player wins at StarCraft 2, you can argue that he is wise too.

Right?

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#128

Post by lmm »

pushrax wrote: post #3

If AlphaGo wins all 5 matches, what do you think DeepMind will do with it? My intuition is that they won't continue development, and instead focus on other applications. Great game btw, a pleasure to watch.

They'll keep using the technology. They probably won't want to play Go again - they'll have little to gain and everything to lose - and I suspect most of the possible audience will lose interest.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#129

Post by masklinn »

ekianjo wrote: post #123
davelondon wrote: post #91

Let's compare Go and Chess. We all know that Go is more complex that Chess, but how much more? There's 10^50 atoms in the planet Earth. That's a lot. Let's put a chess board in each of them. We'll count each possible permutation of each of the chess boards as a separate position. That's a lot, right? There's 10^50 atoms, and 10^40 positions in each chess board so that gives us 10^90 total positions. That's a lot of p…

I am not sure that calculating the raw number of positions is a good indication of complexity at a given point. What if most positions are obviously junk in go while they are more difficult to assess in chess? Not saying this is the case in this particular example but thats a possibility in theory.

> What if most positions are obviously junk in go while they are more difficult to assess in chess?

I wouldn't go with most (because I don't know about that), but many of these boards would also be either impossible to achieve (in a normal game) or illegal.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#130

Post by eru »

ekianjo wrote: post #123
davelondon wrote: post #91

Let's compare Go and Chess. We all know that Go is more complex that Chess, but how much more? There's 10^50 atoms in the planet Earth. That's a lot. Let's put a chess board in each of them. We'll count each possible permutation of each of the chess boards as a separate position. That's a lot, right? There's 10^50 atoms, and 10^40 positions in each chess board so that gives us 10^90 total positions. That's a lot of p…

I am not sure that calculating the raw number of positions is a good indication of complexity at a given point. What if most positions are obviously junk in go while they are more difficult to assess in chess? Not saying this is the case in this particular example but thats a possibility in theory.

To illustrate your point: you can just add rows to a game of Nim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim) to get a truly enormous state space, without changing the simple winning strategy.
Post reply on HN