In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future? • Hacker News Board

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#111

Post by deanCommie » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 7:48 PM UTC

conanbatt wrote: post #76

tbrake wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet in chess the Carlsens, Nakamuras, Caruanas, Svidlers etc of the world still compete while knowing they have no chance of beating StockFish running on a modern desktop. The super GMs of the world - and basically all of the chess loving public with them - seem to have acknowledged it and moved on; why would such a transition be impossible in Go?

It might happen, but I hope it doesn't. I cannot speak for Chess's mindset but as a Devoted Go Player, we are collectively trying to solve it, and so we have for centuries. We play Go to explore its universe and reach utmost understanding of the game(and a glimpse of ourselves). If we ever find(which eventually we shuold) the exact single pattern that is best for both players, and we solve the game, it becomes someth…

Could you explain to me (someone with a very naive superficial understanding of Go) how Go relates to exploring and understanding the universe?

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#112

Post by furyofantares » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 8:20 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #66

eru wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a trained human + computer with internet access (Google search!) could beat the best humans in Jeopardy for quite a while now.

Not really. Jeopardy is all about buzzer timing[0]. With Google search, you're always going to be slow on the buzzer. That's okay, though. The actual trivia is pretty easy. It's designed this way to be accessible to the average TV viewer. [0] http://www.pisspoor.com/buzzer.html

Buzz then search. I think players tend to work this way too, buzzing as soon as they feel like they'll know the answer, but before they actually consciously have it.

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#113

Post by mirimir » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 9:52 PM UTC

zouhair wrote: post #107

mirimir wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? Is this Poe's Law in action?

We are living in the times of horse races.

Right. I could have just said that. But I wasn't sure how to read the statement. And so the reference to Poe's Law. Just to be clear :)

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#114

Post by geebee » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

I'm pretty sure humans will not stop playing go at intensely high levels just because a computer can beat them.

The analogy to chess is an interesting one, though, not quite as straightforward as it may seem. Chess, when it was first conquered by computers a couple of decades ago, was a triumph of computer vs human, sure, but in such a different way from the way humans play it. Chess is amenable to brute force search in a way that go isn't (though I understand the chess programs really aren't pure brute force), but human chess players don't (as far as I know) really don't play chess in a brute force way, they rely in intuition, experience, and even a bit of gambling and hedging whether their opponent will "see" or "realize" the strategy in time.

As a result, the chess programs were winning through a "reasoning" process that was very different from what you experience watching people play the game. Something very different is going on when humans play, which makes it interesting - in that sense you can sort of dismiss the machine as playing a different game, albeit one with the same board, pieces, and rules. Instead, it's a giant calculation that happens to beat the more intuitive approach once you can search and score X positions per second through an entirely alternate approach to the game.

This current breakthrough with go sounds different, in that it may mean that computers now play go in a way that is much more similar to the way humans play it (it would be interesting to see if a chess program designed more like the go program would have a huge edge over the brute force search approach). Or, if not the same, perhaps a way that is equally if not more interesting.

I'm kind of bummed that I'm out of my depth on this one (I don't know go or chess well enough to really say), but it's an interesting question.