Earlier quoted context omitted.
A counter example would be the easiest way to disprove it.
Cones of Dunshire? :)
I haven't met a formidable Cones of Dunshire computer player, AI or otherwise yet, so for now I remain unconvinced :)
Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players
191–200 of 214 posts
Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably. I think it basically proves that any rule structured game without randomness is solvable.
There is a trivial disproof of your claim. Two players write a turing machine with at most n states with two symbols. The player that produced a terminating turing machine that produces the most 1 symbols on the tape before terminating wins. The optimal strategy for this game is producing a busy beaver, a feat shown not to be computable.
But no one could play because you can't create a Turing machine that provably halts, no?
Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still a good way to go to beat no limit holdem I'd assume.
A group from CMU appears to have solved no-limit heads-up hold-em. It's only a matter of time (and compute power) for a full ring game. No-limit is far more difficult than limit due to the risk of catastrophic failure. A Nash equilibrium robot won't make any money. A robot must identify a weakness in you, then deviate from equilibrium to exploit your weakness. So long as you're playing deep stack, you could simply pl…
If you have a deep stack you can bluff, but your chances of winning aren't high if you don't have the nuts after all. You can only lose so many times before it becomes the martingale strategy.
This especially doesn't work against multiple opponents.
Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a trivial disproof of your claim. Two players write a turing machine with at most n states with two symbols. The player that produced a terminating turing machine that produces the most 1 symbols on the tape before terminating wins. The optimal strategy for this game is producing a busy beaver, a feat shown not to be computable.
But no one could play because you can't create a Turing machine that provably halts, no?
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.
Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still a good way to go to beat no limit holdem I'd assume.
A group from CMU appears to have solved no-limit heads-up hold-em. It's only a matter of time (and compute power) for a full ring game. No-limit is far more difficult than limit due to the risk of catastrophic failure. A Nash equilibrium robot won't make any money. A robot must identify a weakness in you, then deviate from equilibrium to exploit your weakness. So long as you're playing deep stack, you could simply pl…
[deleted]
Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
But no one could play because you can't create a Turing machine that provably halts, no?
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.
The trivial disproof still doesn't disprove anything about go and/or chess. Both chess and go have rules preventing repetition of moves (three fold repetition, and rule 8, respectively), and have a limited pool of possible future states. Therefore, there is no game of go or chess that does not halt. Thus, "Games like go and chess are necessarily solvable by definition, right?"
Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably. I think it basically proves that any rule structured game without randomness is solvable.
There is a trivial disproof of your claim. Two players write a turing machine with at most n states with two symbols. The player that produced a terminating turing machine that produces the most 1 symbols on the tape before terminating wins. The optimal strategy for this game is producing a busy beaver, a feat shown not to be computable.
Any rule structured game with fixed finite bounds is solvable.
Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
When playing against a much stronger player, it's always very hard to figure out why they play tenuki (make a move somewhere else on the board, apparently uncorrelated to the current fight). When AI gets strong enough (and it seems like it has already), it will just tenuki everyone all the time, while winning. Sounds like exactly what's happening already. It's past the event horizon for human understanding.
> past the event horizon for human understanding I think this phrase is going to pop up more and more frequently.
"Outside the light cone" is more on point -- it's far enough away or moving fast enough that we'll never be able catch up.
Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I would not describe the moves dfan is talking about as tactical. Rather, they appear to exhibit a very different positional judgment from what humans use/different strategic aims. What you say sounds plausible, but I do not believe it is backed up by any analysis of the games.
Positional play is nothing more than our human attempt to perform short-circuit evaluation of positions by using heuristics that are easier than calculating non-forced lines precisely to 20+ ply. If you imagine a perfect chess-playing computer, it would have no need of any sort of positional evaluation — literally every move it chooses would be based upon the pure tactical outcome of having evaluated every subsequent move in advance.
When playing against humans, modern engines can accurately evaluate so much deeper than we can that their play is frequently indistinguishable from the purely tactical play of some such perfect computer (at least, once out of the opening, once the number of "good" moves is constrained a bit allowing computers to evaluate to significantly deeper ply).
You say that computers exhibit a different positional judgment, which is true in the "technically correct" sense (their evaluation function is pretty much the literal definition of their positional judgment) but at depths of 25 ply, 30 ply, or even greater, the simple truth is that they are highly willing to enter lines where their king is exposed, they have pawns doubled, they trade away a good bishop and keep their bad bishop, or all of the above (all what we'd consider anti-positional play) just because they can see a concrete outcome (a won piece, a strong attack, etc.) that we can't.
So yeah, by some definition they play positionally. But it's really by a definition that's only perhaps useful to other computers and not us humans; to us, it's significantly closer in practice to what we consider highly tactical play.
Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
A group from CMU appears to have solved no-limit heads-up hold-em. It's only a matter of time (and compute power) for a full ring game. No-limit is far more difficult than limit due to the risk of catastrophic failure. A Nash equilibrium robot won't make any money. A robot must identify a weakness in you, then deviate from equilibrium to exploit your weakness. So long as you're playing deep stack, you could simply pl…
If you have a deep stack you can bluff, but your chances of winning aren't high if you don't have the nuts after all. You can only lose so many times before it becomes the martingale strategy. This especially doesn't work against multiple opponents.
Well, I said you should be careful :-)
That's a good strategy against a bad robot, not the latest batch.