Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players • Hacker News Board

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#211

Post by tasuki » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 9:20 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #168

tasuki wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why perfect black play should be any more aggressive than perfect white play. Care to elaborate?

Black moves first, on a 3x3 and 5x5 both end up 100% black with any white piece being captured. Many other board shapes don't but Go is played on a 19 x 19 board. We don't know about 9x9 or even 7x7 so the pattern is hardly set in stone. Still it seems likely. Now, with a perfect white play there may be moves an imperfect black player makes which causes white to attack. But, perfect play on both sides probably means…

> Black moves first, on a 3x3 and 5x5 both end up 100% black with any white piece being captured.

That is true. The same, however, doesn't hold for larger boards (such as 19x19).

> But, perfect play on both sides probably means any white stone gets captured so white plays zero stones.

For boards larger than the small boards you mentioned above, this is completely untrue.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#212

Post by hyperpape » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

Radim wrote: post #209

hyperpape wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that these games look much more human than the ones dfan was describing. There are surprising ideas, but they are still much more normal.

I don't know about that. I'm a mere 1 dan, but I fail to see this marked "difference in normality". What specifically looks "much less human" to you in these newer games?

It's certainly a point of contention, but I think it's the general tenor of comments by other players. Though in hindsight, I wouldn't call it inhuman per se. Humans do play strange moves. It's just a big deviation from pro orthodoxy.

In this games described here, the floating reduction of the wall looks very odd to me: http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=13929&p=21.... I also thought the first game against kiss88 featured a lot of very unorthodox moves: the double tenuki in the top right and the shoulder hit against the 44 + knight's move in the lower left especially seemed novel to me. The two space extension from the 34 point is also uncommon, but less surprising.

Another move that didn't seem familiar to me was the shoulder hit and large knight's reduction in the lower right, but that may just be a tactical variation that's unfamiliar.

P.S. I'm only 3k AGA, 4k OGS, so take my personal opinion with a grain of salt! I do think I have a decent feeling for what other people are thinking. Ke Jie made a comment about no human having scratched the surface of go.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#213

Post by Radim » Sun, Jan 08, 2017, 8:25 AM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #212

Radim wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about that. I'm a mere 1 dan, but I fail to see this marked "difference in normality". What specifically looks "much less human" to you in these newer games?

It's certainly a point of contention, but I think it's the general tenor of comments by other players. Though in hindsight, I wouldn't call it inhuman per se. Humans do play strange moves. It's just a big deviation from pro orthodoxy. In this games described here, the floating reduction of the wall looks very odd to me: http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=13929&p=21... . I also thought the first game ag…

Agreed, AlphaGo's moves are definitely unorthodox. And yes, humans with their "narrative" style of playing and "intuition" can barely scratch the surface of reading-heavy perfect-information zero-sum games like Go. No contention there.

But the question was whether these Master games look less human than the previously published self-play games by AlphaGo. And I just don't see it.

The first and third self-play games in particular look crazier (to me) than anything I've seen in this Master collection.

But again, just a measly 1d amateur commenting on unworldly 9p vs ?11?p battles :) People at my level can barely glimpse the tip of the iceberg.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#214

Post by mafuy » Wed, Jan 18, 2017, 10:33 AM UTC

andorov wrote: post #205

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can prove that any given Turing machine halts or does not halt, but there's no single algorithm that can prove that for every Turing machine. The trivial case of a Turing machine that can be proven to halt is one with only one state: halted.

Yes but this case requires Turing machines that produce very very large (BB large) outputs and then halt. Is that provable for a specific machine?

Any specific machine can be proved to terminate or not terminate - albeit not always in ZFC. For instance, BB(10) can be computed, just as BB(10000) can, just that the latter cannot be computed in ZFC.