Anyone know the origin of the name they chose? Did they name their bot after the rapper Percy Miller?
I seriously doubt the Percy Miller connection.
AlphaGo is the best player in the world, so a name like Master fits it :)
They also probably didn't want to choose a human looking name which could mislead people, and instead chose one which could presumably be either of a human or an AI.
The context of this thread is AlphaGo. Why would we bother discussing what bad human players do when the topic is clearly about play at the highest levels?
The highest level players play special variations against each other hoping that the other player doesn't know it. They CLEARLY play against what they think the other player knows, not what they know (since they have studied this variation on purpose to prepare)
> Go is regarded as the most complex board game ever invented I'm not sure that's an accurate statement.
How about the following statement? "There is no widely played game for which an Elo rating system shows a larger measurable range of skill than Go." This is a precise and measurable statement. The standard deviation of the Elo system used in Chess is 200, and the range from the best humans to rank amateurs is 14 times this standard deviation. When the Elo system was adapted to Go, the standard deviation was set to 10…
Complex is being used in a different context here though. You are meaning complex as in strategic complexity. The parent (I think) is using it in terms of the games rules. Go is pretty simple in principle: place stones on the board one at a time, and remove enemy pieces completely surrounded by your own. But it's fairly complex to know what exactly constitutes being surrounded. Chess has 6 different kinds of pieces that have different movements, and different kinds of rules depending on the state, and promotion at the end, castling, and en passant. Checkers is a much simpler game because there's only 2 kinds of pieces, and 2 kinds of moves. Strategically, Chess isn't leaps and bounds more complex than Checkers since Carlsen has an Elo rating of 2800 in Chess, and Tinsley had an Elo rating of 2700 in Checkers and I believe it's the same deviation of 200.
How about the following statement? "There is no widely played game for which an Elo rating system shows a larger measurable range of skill than Go." This is a precise and measurable statement. The standard deviation of the Elo system used in Chess is 200, and the range from the best humans to rank amateurs is 14 times this standard deviation. When the Elo system was adapted to Go, the standard deviation was set to 10…
Complex is being used in a different context here though. You are meaning complex as in strategic complexity. The parent (I think) is using it in terms of the games rules. Go is pretty simple in principle: place stones on the board one at a time, and remove enemy pieces completely surrounded by your own. But it's fairly complex to know what exactly constitutes being surrounded. Chess has 6 different kinds of pieces t…
Checkers has adjusted its Elo system over time. I believe that it now matches chess except with a floor of a 1000 rating. From http://icheckers.net/ratings/, the current ratings range goes from 1000 to 2297 among active players, and up to 2510 among inactive players.
Even if you use the larger range of inactive players, that's a range of 7.5 times the standard deviation. Which is considerably less than chess.
One thing that isn't made clear in this writeup is that Master plays in a very nonhuman style, as opposed to the version of AlphaGo that beat Lee Sedol, which mostly played like a strong human except for a few surprising moves. My first guess when I saw Master's games was that it was a program like AlphaGo that had its policy network trained from scratch rather than being bootstrapped by being given the goal of imita…
I would call its style unorthodox rather than nonhuman. It still plays common josekis (standard opening sequences) but often chooses uncommon variations. Its mid game is full of startling moves backed by VERY good reading. There's definitely still discernible strategy that us mortals can learn from. If I recall correctly, the version that beat Lee Sedol was trained on amateur games plus self-play. My guess would be t…
One thing that isn't made clear in this writeup is that Master plays in a very nonhuman style, as opposed to the version of AlphaGo that beat Lee Sedol, which mostly played like a strong human except for a few surprising moves. My first guess when I saw Master's games was that it was a program like AlphaGo that had its policy network trained from scratch rather than being bootstrapped by being given the goal of imita…
Another interesting aspect is that AlphaGo gets a larger advantage over human players if it plays novel moves and forces rare situations that the human players are not familiar with. So if AlphaGo is allowed to self-play a long time and "drift away" in strategy space from human games that could help a lot. This is even more the case in time-limited matches where the humans are forced to play intuitively in out of sample states.
The context of this thread is AlphaGo. Why would we bother discussing what bad human players do when the topic is clearly about play at the highest levels?
The highest level players play special variations against each other hoping that the other player doesn't know it. They CLEARLY play against what they think the other player knows, not what they know (since they have studied this variation on purpose to prepare)
As a semi-pro player I can assure you thats not how you play Go.
The highest level players play special variations against each other hoping that the other player doesn't know it. They CLEARLY play against what they think the other player knows, not what they know (since they have studied this variation on purpose to prepare)
As a semi-pro player I can assure you thats not how you play Go.
That's just appeal to authority. Lee Sedol's move against AlphaGo in game 4 could be considered a trap because it actually didn't work, but it was complicated enough to trick AlphaGo.
One thing that isn't made clear in this writeup is that Master plays in a very nonhuman style, as opposed to the version of AlphaGo that beat Lee Sedol, which mostly played like a strong human except for a few surprising moves. My first guess when I saw Master's games was that it was a program like AlphaGo that had its policy network trained from scratch rather than being bootstrapped by being given the goal of imita…
As computers are able to evaluate positions faster (and therefore deeper), the "godlike" tactics are dominating over human-style strategy. It used to be that computers played "computer-like" moves because they didn't understand the position. Now, they play computer-like moves because "understanding" the position isn't as important as just being able to see 25+ moves ahead. In a nutshell, positional play in chess is s…
they'll happily enter lines where their pawn structures are shattered...
Makes you wonder if computers will essentially ruin all the novelty of innovating and discovering new tricks/strategies in age-old games. No more will genius' have their moments of brilliance and improvisation that lead to a stunning victory or upset. No more will commentators debate and regal over phenomenal victories in ages past.
With a computer, it's just the optimal play strategy and you were just playing a god who knew the quickest path to terminating your king. When a human runs with non-standard play strategies in almost any game, it's considered brilliant, innovative, game of the century, etc...
> Go is regarded as the most complex board game ever invented I'm not sure that's an accurate statement.
How about the following statement? "There is no widely played game for which an Elo rating system shows a larger measurable range of skill than Go." This is a precise and measurable statement. The standard deviation of the Elo system used in Chess is 200, and the range from the best humans to rank amateurs is 14 times this standard deviation. When the Elo system was adapted to Go, the standard deviation was set to 10…
Yeah, "deep" is probably a better term than "complex" to describe Go.