AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

Post by visarga » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 2:10 PM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #230

crispyambulance wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose in the era of Bobby Fischer, chess was proxy for superpower one-upmanship. That's long gone, but Chess as a game is still doing fine and I expect that it will be the same for Go. We still have chess tournaments, super-star grandmasters and circus freaks (people who can play blindfolded against multiple opponents). And, yes, computers can easily smoke all but elite players. Why should Go be different?

Because it is far more complex. But apparently self learning KI has advanced enough. And yes, chess has lost some reputation. And I guess it will be similar with go. I mean there is a University just for go. But learning something where you know you can become the best, is something different, than learning something knowing computers will be allways better than you ... so I guess they are having a hard time right no…

Post by markdog12 » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

stevekemp wrote: post #181

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…

Now go read "The Player of Games", by Iain M. Banks, to see that idea taken to extremes.

Post by conanbatt » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 2:15 PM UTC

taneq wrote: post #248

conanbatt wrote: post #241

What is interesting to me is that the computer makes clear mistakes when its on the lead. Since it might find the chances to win equally among different scoring results, it often picks a weaker one. This has a powerful consequence: we have not seen AlphaGo pushed to the limit, he is lowering the distances as if it were playing a teaching game. Lee Sedol I think came to this conclusion, and the only human strategy lef…

I don't see how you can term them as "clear mistakes" when the game is playing at a higher level than any of us meatbags. In this case (according to DeepMind) it's no different to a racing driver backing off the pace in the last few laps if they have a big lead - it's better to guarantee a win than to win by a large margin.

Post by thomasahle » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #269

Does anyone know of a site/video, where I can just see the game moves without commentary and thinking pauses?

Post by caskance » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

ap22213 wrote: post #262

fhe wrote: post #239

As someone who studied AI in college and am a reasonably good amateur player, I have been following the matches between Lee and AlphaGo. AlphaGo plays some unusual moves that go clearly against any classically trained Go players. Moves that simply don't quite fit into the current theories of Go playing, and the world's top players are struggling to explain what's the purpose/strategy behind them. I've been giving it…

Sometimes optimal solutions don't make sense to the human mind because they're not intuitive. For instance, I developed a system that used machine learning and linear solver models to spit out a series of actions to take in response to some events. The actions were to be acted on by humans who were experts in the field. In fact, they were the ones from whom we inferred the relevant initial heuristics. Everyday, I wou…