I was surprised the Lee Sedol didn't take the game a bit further to probe AlphaGo and see how it responded to [...complex kos, complex ko fights, complex sekis, complex semeais, ..., multiple connection problems, complex life and death problems] as ammunition for his next game. I think he was so astonished at being put into a losing position, he wasn't mentally prepared to put himself in a student's role again, especially to an AI...which had clearly played much weaker games just 6 months ago. I'm hopeful Lee Sedol's team has been some meta-strategy sessions where, if he finds himself in a losing position in game two, he turns it into exploring a set of experiments to tease out some of the weaknesses to be better exploited in the remaining games.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote: > On 10.03.2016 00:45, Hideki Kato wrote: > >> such as solving complex semeai's and double-ko's, aren't solved yet. >> > > To find out Alphago's weaknesses, there can be, in particular, > > - this match > - careful analysis of its games > - Alphago playing on artificial problem positions incl. complex kos, > complex ko fights, complex sekis, complex semeais, complex endgames, > multiple connection problems, complex life and death problems (such as Igo > Hatsu Yoron 120) etc., and then theoretical analysis of such play > - semantic verification of the program code and interface > - theoretical study of the used theory and the generated dynamic data > (structures) > > -- > 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
