Just as an aside, One nice thing about having "expert" chess players is the ability to easily discover cheating and to estimate the "player rank" of any move. Because the computer is effectively an oracle for that game, it gives incidental feedback about strength of any given move.
steve On Feb 3, 2016 6:34 AM, "Jim O'Flaherty" <jim.oflaherty...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert, > > How have these things emerged in the chess AI world following Deep Blue > and Kasperov's loss over a decade ago? To what degree does "human expert > details of chess theory matters" (where the term "matters" is pretty > squishy). From what I can see, that is not what happened and while I am not > privy to every detail of every motivation in the chess AI world, I'm > certainly not seeing this assertion or the supporting values arising to any > level of relevance, much less primacy. > > And for those who were working in the Chess knowledge world, how was their > work, business, grants and funding affected by the Deep Blue/Kasperov > results and then the rapid improvement of more than one chess engine to > beyond the highest skilled humans? What happened to prize tournaments? To > what degree is it reasonable to predict a similar pattern will occur in and > about Go and those who are working in the Go knowledge world? > > BTW, I have my own personal aspirations which have been thwarted by this > development. I have several thousand hours of doing my own research and > development (of my personal spare time outside my day job, over many years) > which has been rendered considerably less valuable (other than my own > personal development in the non-Go related parts). And I'm finding it > difficult to embrace this "change" as I had no idea just how much > motivation it created in the present having the Go AI goal as an inspiring > future. The loss of that motivation has created anxiety and uncertainty. > > And even in spite of the loss and the grief I am experiencing in that > loss, I am still very enthusiastic about Aja and his team's achievements. > And I will be following all the teams who continue to work in this area. > For myself, I will now look for other ways to apply my knowledge, although > I will likely drift further away from Go as the focal point of motivation. > > Best of luck finding your way through your meaning and value (emotional) > reintegration of this newest reality update. > > > Namaste, > > Jim > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote: > >> The current fashion favours general AI approaches forgoing knowledge >> details. Given enough calculation power applied to well chosen AI >> techiques, many knowledge details are redundant because they are generated >> automatically: AlphaGo does play (at least some) ko fights with ko threats, >> tesujis, test moves, (at least some) life and death or semeai problems etc. >> At the same time, AI calculation power is still not large enough to >> generate all human knowledge details. Aji with long-term impact and >> maintaining the life status "independently alive" instead of unnecessarily >> transforming it to "(ko|independently alive)" (aka "unsettled") are prime >> examples. Programs also play for the win regardless of whether moves are >> suboptimal for the score difference - human players tend to avoid such >> (programs would also profit from avoiding such to prevent losing when >> making a later mistake due to a knowledge gap related to insufficient error >> handling). There is another great threat related to knowledge details, >> which is not immediately apparent and will be even much less apparent when >> programs will exceed top human playing strength: A program can run into a >> situation where an infrequent knowledge detail becomes relevant. And a >> program can run into ordinary software or hardware bugs, something that >> must be detected and correct on the AI level. >> >> My conclusion is: human expert knowledge on details of go theory matters. >> >> There have been 9p players committing self-atari when filling a dame, so >> you might argue that programs may infrequently make similar blunders. When >> I issued a million dollar prize, I'd prefer human expert knowledge >> implemented at least as an additional layer of error handling. >> >> (Other fun includes internet connection trouble, server bugs of >> distributed computers, hardware bugs of the local interface computers or >> interrupted power supply.) >> >> -- >> robert jasiek >> _______________________________________________ >> Computer-go mailing list >> Computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
