381–390 of 471 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that Lee was black in games one (due to luck of the draw) and three I expected he would be in game five as well. Perhaps the system permits loser to choose?
normally the color of the 5th game is chosen by the result of the 4th game, but Lee asked to change that rule and make him black, so he can have a shot at beating AlphaGo as black.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He made $30k for losing that game, so I don't feel too sorry for him.
The best (like absolute best) football|basketball|baseball players in the world make approximately what per game?
I would like to see AlphaGo play 21 against Steph Curry.
Is there a place I can go to quickly flip through all the board states from the game?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>yesterday we only had a lower bound on AlphaGo's strength; today we also have an upper bound I think it's premature, establishing bounds with good confidence interval requires tens or hundreds of games. Specifically, 3:2 result would be really inconclusive.
The first data point tells you more about bounds than any individual subsequent data point. Knowing that a human can defeat AlphaGo is enormously important. To use an analogy, having confirmation of contact by even a single alien species would be hugely important, way more so than exactly nailing down the number of alien species. Knowing that something is even possible is oftentimes the most important aspect that nee…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still, wow! And a human is using 100W or so: (~400 max) https://sustainability.blogs.brynmawr.edu/2012/07/31/underst...
And don't forget, the human grows organically from a complex system of DNA that also codes for way more than playing Go! And is able to perform a lot of tasks very efficiently, including cooperating together on open ended activities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He made $30k for losing that game, so I don't feel too sorry for him.
If it really was about money, I don't think he would have spent so much of his life dedicated to Go ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read some articles in Korean press that suggested AlphaGo team picked Lee as their match and not Ke Jie (currently #1 ranked, 19 years young) because there's a lot more public records of Lee's plays over his much longer pro career (nearly 20 years now). Thus more material for AlphaGo to train with and against. So it's not totally arrogant of Ke Jie to suggest he could beat AlphaGo. AlphaGo has not much 'experien…
Ke Jie just happens to be #1 right now. Lee Sedol is more impressive in that he's been a world-class Go player for much longer. Twenty years from now, if Ke Jie is as dominant as Lee Sedol is now, then he'd be a good pick then. But either way it's not a big deal; there's not that much daylight between the two, so picking the more famous and well-known one to go up against is a safe bet. Personally I want to see a dis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, not to belabor it, but if you can do something like be a champion in go or chess, chances are you have the mental skillset to do something exponentially more lucrative.
This is not true. Scientific studies have shown that skills in abstract strategy games are so specific to the game that they do not transfer to other tasks. The urban legend about Chess grandmasters all being geniuses is false, in other words. They're actually worse at most jobs than people who've been doing those jobs for awhile, because they lack the experience, and they aren't more predisposed to having a genius i…
What the person you're responding to means is that if they have the mental capacity (and also discipline) to play the game at such a high level, they could probably also excel in other professions if their goal was to make money instead of doing something they loved.
Of course we can debate whether they would achieve such success if they were doing something they didn't enjoy as much, but I think most people would argue that most chess or go champions could make more money or in other words do more "lucrative" activities if they chose to do them instead of dedicated all their time to the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, not to belabor it, but if you can do something like be a champion in go or chess, chances are you have the mental skillset to do something exponentially more lucrative.
This is not true. Scientific studies have shown that skills in abstract strategy games are so specific to the game that they do not transfer to other tasks. The urban legend about Chess grandmasters all being geniuses is false, in other words. They're actually worse at most jobs than people who've been doing those jobs for awhile, because they lack the experience, and they aren't more predisposed to having a genius i…
Do you have a reference for that please? I'm interested in the subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, not to belabor it, but if you can do something like be a champion in go or chess, chances are you have the mental skillset to do something exponentially more lucrative.
This is not true. Scientific studies have shown that skills in abstract strategy games are so specific to the game that they do not transfer to other tasks. The urban legend about Chess grandmasters all being geniuses is false, in other words. They're actually worse at most jobs than people who've been doing those jobs for awhile, because they lack the experience, and they aren't more predisposed to having a genius i…
Of course chess grandmasters aren't all-around geniuses, but many traits that are prerequisites for a successful chess player certainly are translatable into careers in other fields, and correlate with above average brainpower (good memory, discipline, long attention span, spatial intelligence etc.)
Botvinnik was an accomplished engineer, Euwe had PhD in mathematics, Anatoly Karpov is a millionaire, interestingly enough a lot of recognized chess players had careers in music (like Taimanov or Smyslov)...
Being a grandmaster surely requires an above average intellect, there is no such thing as a chess savant. While it's an urban legend that Kasparov's (arguably the greatest chess player ever) IQ was in the ballpark of 190, he did clock at 135. Such a result is not unheard of, yet still placing him in top 1% or so.