Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

gogameguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 471 posts

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#431

Post by conceit »

jonbarker wrote: post #299

AlphaGo's weakness was stated in the press conference inadvertently: it considers only the opponent moves in the future which it deems to be the most profitable for the opponent. This leaves it with glaring blind spots when it has not prepared for lines which are surprising to it. Lee Sedol has now learned to exploit this fact in a mere 4 games, whereas the NN requires millions of games to train on in order to alter…

You are saying, its weakness is making the mistake of not looking at all the profitable moves.

The contra argument for the sake of the argument goes, he just was lucky to find a local maximum (?) outside of the search space (?) by chance, rather than learning in a few days the universal function (?) that the NN thinks solves go, or at least one fixed point (?) [i.e. the surprisingly wrong expectation].

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#434

Post by marvy »

CydeWeys wrote: post #393
rifung wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you're disagreeing with the person you're responding to. Just because the skills involved are very specific doesn't imply that the people with those skills only are capable of obtaining said skill. What the person you're responding to means is that if they have the mental capacity (and also discipline) to play the game at such a high level, they could probably also excel in other professions if their goa…

You are relying too much on the concept of a generalized mental capacity, which many researchers (maybe even most) would say does not exist. You seem to be assuming that grandmasters are just amazingly smart and they happen to apply those smarts to one particular skill, but what's closer to the truth is that they happen to be particularly amazing at that one skill, in a way that doesn't really correlate strongly with…

But what about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)?

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#435

Post by marvy »

eru wrote: post #350
marcus_holmes wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that computers beating us at chess allowed us to get better at chess, right?

Fan Hui, the professional player they beat late last year, already improved his game by quite a bit from the occasional match with AlphaGo (deepmind hired him as a consultant to test). He's won every single game in the last European championship, and moved from around top 600th player in the world to around top 300.

Wow. I know nothing about go, but 600--->300 sounds like quite an improvement.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#436

Post by V-2 »

_yosefk wrote: post #316
simondedalus wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, not to belabor it, but if you can do something like be a champion in go or chess, chances are you have the mental skillset to do something exponentially more lucrative.

I dunno, Bobby Fischer was kinda deranged, for instance, and that often hurts outcomes in otherwise "lucrative" positions. Incidentally, he is credited with raising chess player compensation through his demands. Generally I'd guess you're right though.

Well, mental issues did break his chess career just the same.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#437

Post by nullc »

CydeWeys wrote: post #394
cLeEOGPw wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the time chess was "the" problem, humans could beat computer too from time to time. Now the chess is solved. Same will likely happen to go in the years to come. But the point of this was not the go itself. It was the demonstration of potential capabilities of neural network and other machine learning algorithms.

Chess isn't solved. It's just that computers have gotten sufficiently better at it than humans that humans don't have a chance. If Chess were truly solved, then you wouldn't be able to make a new AI program that could do better than even odds against the existing ones. But that's not the case, and incremental advancements in Chess-playing programs are made all the time. There are even tournaments where Chess programs…

Even that isn't strong enough. The game is determinstic.

If chess were _solved_ we'd know a strategy to allow one of the players (likely white) to always win, or for either of them to always force a draw. (and we'd know which of these strategies were possible for chess).

Consider, say there is a first move white could choose such that no matter what moves black makes, white will win. Then the first would be true. Instead consider, that there is no such move, and any first move has choices where either could win-- if some of those are ones which would force a black win, then the first is again true but for black. Otherwise, a draw can always be forced. These are the only possible outcomes for a solved game of chess.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#438

Post by waterhouse »

CydeWeys wrote: post #393
rifung wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you're disagreeing with the person you're responding to. Just because the skills involved are very specific doesn't imply that the people with those skills only are capable of obtaining said skill. What the person you're responding to means is that if they have the mental capacity (and also discipline) to play the game at such a high level, they could probably also excel in other professions if their goa…

You are relying too much on the concept of a generalized mental capacity, which many researchers (maybe even most) would say does not exist. You seem to be assuming that grandmasters are just amazingly smart and they happen to apply those smarts to one particular skill, but what's closer to the truth is that they happen to be particularly amazing at that one skill, in a way that doesn't really correlate strongly with…

If you took the people who would have grown up to be chess grandmasters, intercepted them just before they started spending significant amounts of time studying chess, and had them instead spend all that time studying programming or physics or something, how do you think they would rank up?

You seem to be arguing against the idea, "A chess grandmaster is a genius and therefore can walk into Google and immediately start doing more and better work than most of their senior programmers". I don't think anyone believes this (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think a more serious idea is, "A chess grandmaster is a genius and therefore learns faster and has a higher performance ceiling and such than most people, and if they spent a couple of years learning to program, they could become an entry-level Google programmer, after which they would rise more quickly than most hires, and eventually would outperform most of Google's senior programmers."

By the way, I think most of the best chess players were extreme chess prodigies. (Just looked at Kasparov, Karpov, Shirov, Kramnik, Anand, and Carlsen's Wiki pages; all but Kramnik had the year listed, and they all became grandmasters around age 17-19, except Carlsen, who was around 14. Kramnik's page mentioned winning a gold medal for the Russian team at age 16, and that he wasn't a grandmaster when selected for the team and this was unusual.) I think this is consistent with them being highly gifted children, who choose to spend their time doing chess.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#439

Post by goPlayerJuggler »

hibikir wrote: post #293
nopinsight wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so coincidentally, "This was when things got weird. From 87 to 101 AlphaGo made a series of very bad moves." [1] The bad moves in the eyes of humans could be risky bets or the horizon effect. [1] [2] AlphaGo's use of deep neural nets (value networks) to evaluate board positions should significantly help counter the horizon effect, but since move 78 by Lee Sedol which turned the situation around was unexpected by…

78 was hard, but not impossible: If you watch the AGA commentary of the game, they had two pros at the time 78 happened, and they found 78 as the best answer a few minutes before Lee did, expecting AlphaGo to go with a stronger, yet still good not good enough 79, that left the game even, instead of basically lost. Then they were elated about how AlphaGo seemed to have failed to read the whole thing, and instead of do…

I got something different from the AGA commentary. The pros did consider 78, but came to the conclusion that it didn't work! I'm just a 1kyu player but I too can't see any way to make 78 work after Black plays 79 as an atari at L10, as suggested by the pros. So I'd be very interested to see some analysis that shows how White could get a fair result after Black 79 at L10.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#440

Post by 3minus1 »

Jach wrote: post #115
kibaekr wrote: post #99

So where can we see this "move 78" that everyone is talking about, without having to go through the entire match counting?

https://online-go.com/review/116862

"look at that move. that's an exciting move"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCALyQRN3hw&feature=youtu.be

Post reply on HN