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

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

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

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

#71

Post by conanbatt »

chenglou wrote: post #5

I mean, that's like asking whether marathon runners have a future now that we've got cars. Exercising one's brain/having pleasure through the game could be an end in itself, and is independent of how machines perform.

Take it from someone that walked the path of becoming a professional Go player, being a professional and an amateur are completely different attitudes towards the game. Tic Tac Toe is solved, but can be fun to play when you are a kid. Amateur Go playing can still exist, but the goal of strength is more instilled in the path to pro-ship.

This really suggests that going the path of being the strongest is no longer sensical. Why would a human try to be the best calculator in the world, knowing it will never beat any calculator ever? Just to prove itself to other human caculator wannabes? Senseless.

This is a real paradigm shift and we still need to understand what to do. But obliviously ignore AlphaGo is akin should be unfathomable for a professional aspiring player.

As a professional, the first question to ask is what will AlphaGo bring to Go Theory. We still dont know how much stronger it is than Lee Sedol (or how far it is from "God"). Pushing it to its limits will show us insights we havent found yet and we will update ourselves as players to the most current theory.

The second step is answering the following question: Can human + AlphaGo beat Alpha Go? A human potentiated with AlphaGo's reading power can intuitively pick variations that would give it an edge? If so, we have found that Go still harbors a human secret that is jsut overly compensated by reading.

The last step would be, even if human participation gives negligible results, can human + Alpha Go create better games than Alpha Go?

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

#72

Post by yannyu »

conanbatt wrote: post #71
chenglou wrote: post #5

I mean, that's like asking whether marathon runners have a future now that we've got cars. Exercising one's brain/having pleasure through the game could be an end in itself, and is independent of how machines perform.

Take it from someone that walked the path of becoming a professional Go player, being a professional and an amateur are completely different attitudes towards the game. Tic Tac Toe is solved, but can be fun to play when you are a kid. Amateur Go playing can still exist, but the goal of strength is more instilled in the path to pro-ship. This really suggests that going the path of being the strongest is no longer sens…

Anything that Go has to go through as a result of AlphaGo, Chess has already gone through with Stockfish and its predecessors (such as Deep Blue, though I realize it's not exactly the same).

Is there a particular reason why a chess computer would be any more undefeatable than a Go computer? Even though Kasparov lost, Nakamura destroyed Rybka 10 years later. Now that we have a competitive Go AI, isn't it likely the game of Go will shift and be even more competitive since now more players can get world-class practice and suggestions on their own?

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

#73

Post by tbrake »

conanbatt wrote: post #71
chenglou wrote: post #5

I mean, that's like asking whether marathon runners have a future now that we've got cars. Exercising one's brain/having pleasure through the game could be an end in itself, and is independent of how machines perform.

Take it from someone that walked the path of becoming a professional Go player, being a professional and an amateur are completely different attitudes towards the game. Tic Tac Toe is solved, but can be fun to play when you are a kid. Amateur Go playing can still exist, but the goal of strength is more instilled in the path to pro-ship. This really suggests that going the path of being the strongest is no longer sens…

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?

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

#74

Post by c3534l »

conanbatt wrote: post #71
chenglou wrote: post #5

I mean, that's like asking whether marathon runners have a future now that we've got cars. Exercising one's brain/having pleasure through the game could be an end in itself, and is independent of how machines perform.

Take it from someone that walked the path of becoming a professional Go player, being a professional and an amateur are completely different attitudes towards the game. Tic Tac Toe is solved, but can be fun to play when you are a kid. Amateur Go playing can still exist, but the goal of strength is more instilled in the path to pro-ship. This really suggests that going the path of being the strongest is no longer sens…

Eventually everything we do will be done better by technology. Why should anyone do anything? I think the experience is worthwhile in and of itself and I look forward to what AI can teach us about the game.

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

#75

Post by make3 »

ng12 wrote: post #22
nothis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that analogy a lot! It's not like "playing Go really well" ever solved any real-world problem, it has always been a competition among humans. What should change, there?

I feel like the author completely misunderstood why AlphaGo is exciting. It's about advancements in technology and soft AI, Go has almost nothing to do with it.

we're slowly moving towards anticipation in continuous strategy games, and life. progressively better decisions/anticipation in progressively much much larger decision space is how this is relevant

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

#76

Post by conanbatt »

tbrake wrote: post #73
conanbatt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take it from someone that walked the path of becoming a professional Go player, being a professional and an amateur are completely different attitudes towards the game. Tic Tac Toe is solved, but can be fun to play when you are a kid. Amateur Go playing can still exist, but the goal of strength is more instilled in the path to pro-ship. This really suggests that going the path of being the strongest is no longer sens…

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 something different. Maybe it becomes something senseless, or something artful(I can explain the 'art' part if someone asks) but trying to be competitive is silly.

If I devoted my life to Go today, I would not aim at becoming better competing, I'd have to aim at a more effective way to solve the game. Competing was the only thing we had to figure out what was best, but now we can have a companion that will prevent us from faulty variations and logic, and give us instant validation. We can discover more fuseki with a focus group and AlphaGo in a month than in a decade of tournaments.

Competing for the sake of competing is a petty goal.

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

#77

Post by kercker »

chenglou wrote: post #5

I mean, that's like asking whether marathon runners have a future now that we've got cars. Exercising one's brain/having pleasure through the game could be an end in itself, and is independent of how machines perform.

>"I mean, that's like asking whether marathon runners have a future now that we've got cars."

I don't think they are the same things. Marathon is about the physical limit of human beings, while Go is about mental limit.

Before there are cars, or trains, we all know we are not the fastest in the world. A rabbit can easily overrun an adult human.

However, we never thought that a dog or a bird will beat us in a game like GO. Thinking a machine beating the human champion in the game of GO, is like admitting that we are intelligently inferior to machines.

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

#79

Post by conanbatt »

yannyu wrote: post #72
conanbatt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take it from someone that walked the path of becoming a professional Go player, being a professional and an amateur are completely different attitudes towards the game. Tic Tac Toe is solved, but can be fun to play when you are a kid. Amateur Go playing can still exist, but the goal of strength is more instilled in the path to pro-ship. This really suggests that going the path of being the strongest is no longer sens…

Anything that Go has to go through as a result of AlphaGo, Chess has already gone through with Stockfish and its predecessors (such as Deep Blue, though I realize it's not exactly the same). Is there a particular reason why a chess computer would be any more undefeatable than a Go computer? Even though Kasparov lost, Nakamura destroyed Rybka 10 years later. Now that we have a competitive Go AI, isn't it likely the ga…

If I understand AlphaGo correctly, I don't think that any human in the future will be able to beat the AlphaGo today. AlphaGo didn't beat Lee Sedol because it played new and marvelous moves we need to understand.

It played better because it knew the exact consequences of the options it was presented, and could calculate it and make better decisions than human intuition. No human can develop that reading power, and its not reasonable to think a human in the future will have intuition that beats the calculation of AlphaGo.

Since reading, the core ability of Go can now be completely replaced by a computer, the question is what others decisions can a player make. Can he make strategic decisions better than AlphaGo? Can intuition still best AlphaGo calculating capacity?

Eventually, we can think that we will have computational power to actually solve Go, and if there is any sense at all to play Go after that, its about finding those beautiful games, from beginning to end, that provoke emotions and turn Go purely into art.

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

#80

Post by mirimir »

kercker wrote: post #77
chenglou wrote: post #5

I mean, that's like asking whether marathon runners have a future now that we've got cars. Exercising one's brain/having pleasure through the game could be an end in itself, and is independent of how machines perform.

>"I mean, that's like asking whether marathon runners have a future now that we've got cars." I don't think they are the same things. Marathon is about the physical limit of human beings, while Go is about mental limit. Before there are cars, or trains, we all know we are not the fastest in the world. A rabbit can easily overrun an adult human. However, we never thought that a dog or a bird will beat us in a game lik…

Well, arguably we are machines.
Post reply on HN