51–60 of 285 posts
I wish that the superconductor debacle (and many others) had taught people critical thinking and skepticism. And yet this is the #1 post on HN right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are moot because the solution is known. When a human makes a mistake the intrigue is discovering the fix to become better. In solo copetition solved games are highly fascinating because the person is racing the TAS or the solved route. In human versus human games, we can simply look up what the human did wrong. There is no cognitive challenge in answer lookup. Its just oh, he sucks he missed the move. Since its…
> Since its two humans competing it becomes "who sucks less" but its two losers that both suck competing. Yeah, this is my problem with bowling and golf. If you're a professional bowler, literally your only job is to knock down the pins. Why do anything else? If you miss one, you're bad at your job. Ditto with golf -- the hole is right there, just get the ball in it! (Honestly not sure how sarcastic vs sincere I am i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This paper "weakly solves" Othello. That means that we know for the initial board state both 1) the final win/lose/draw outcome (it's a draw), and 2) the sequence of moves that should be taken by perfect players to get there (Figure 1, right). In particular, the paper does not "strongly solve" Othello. If you have an arbitrary board state, 1) and 2) are are not necessarily known for it. That means it's still possible…
>That means it's still possible to win a game by intentionally deviating from the perfect sequence Someone with perfect strategy would have an answer for any deviation. Playing imperfectly would likely get you into a losing position. There is no way to go from a game being drawn if played perfectly to being winning if the then loser were to be using perfect strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This paper "weakly solves" Othello. That means that we know for the initial board state both 1) the final win/lose/draw outcome (it's a draw), and 2) the sequence of moves that should be taken by perfect players to get there (Figure 1, right). In particular, the paper does not "strongly solve" Othello. If you have an arbitrary board state, 1) and 2) are are not necessarily known for it. That means it's still possible…
>That means it's still possible to win a game by intentionally deviating from the perfect sequence Someone with perfect strategy would have an answer for any deviation. Playing imperfectly would likely get you into a losing position. There is no way to go from a game being drawn if played perfectly to being winning if the then loser were to be using perfect strategy.
For those interested in the game (it's popular among computer science and AI scholars), the Othello world championship is currently underway in Rome, Italy with games live streamed on liveothello.com and Youtube @WorldOthello
Does this paper render the championship moot? Is any software based on the paper entered? Is Othello like checkers, where there were mostly draws in high level games?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This paper "weakly solves" Othello. That means that we know for the initial board state both 1) the final win/lose/draw outcome (it's a draw), and 2) the sequence of moves that should be taken by perfect players to get there (Figure 1, right). In particular, the paper does not "strongly solve" Othello. If you have an arbitrary board state, 1) and 2) are are not necessarily known for it. That means it's still possible…
>That means it's still possible to win a game by intentionally deviating from the perfect sequence Someone with perfect strategy would have an answer for any deviation. Playing imperfectly would likely get you into a losing position. There is no way to go from a game being drawn if played perfectly to being winning if the then loser were to be using perfect strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This paper "weakly solves" Othello. That means that we know for the initial board state both 1) the final win/lose/draw outcome (it's a draw), and 2) the sequence of moves that should be taken by perfect players to get there (Figure 1, right). In particular, the paper does not "strongly solve" Othello. If you have an arbitrary board state, 1) and 2) are are not necessarily known for it. That means it's still possible…
>That means it's still possible to win a game by intentionally deviating from the perfect sequence Someone with perfect strategy would have an answer for any deviation. Playing imperfectly would likely get you into a losing position. There is no way to go from a game being drawn if played perfectly to being winning if the then loser were to be using perfect strategy.
Imagine finding a pamphlet written by God that contains a listing of a perfect game of chess. Armed with it, you will still lose easily to Magnus Carlsen. He will deviate fro| the sequence and you won't know the perfect responses to his moves.
Correct title: an unknown author from an unknown startup claims in an arXiv preprint (listed somehow in the cs.AI archive) that Othello has been solved. The paper is 13 pages long. I wish that the superconductor debacle (and many others) had taught people critical thinking and skepticism. And yet this is the #1 post on HN right now.
In contrast, this is not spouting a revolution in physics, but a mathematical puzzle that is mostly trivia. I suspect that the best computer Othello algorithm can already trounce a human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But none of this explicit. This is at best an announcement of a potential proof. But it isn't a proof yet. Also curious: in the end of the paper they talk about having "weakly solve" Othello... the paper overall reads really strangely.
"Weakly solving" a game is a technical term. If you have weakly solved a game, you can play perfectly (achieve the optimal result) when the game starts from its initial position. If you have strongly solved it, you can play perfectly starting from any position.
But given the overall state of that paper I think this is a side concern at best anyway.