With at most 2x361 or so different end scores but 10^{XXX} possible different
games, there are at least in the opening many moves with the same optimal
outcome. The difference between these moves is not the guaranteed score (they
are all optimal) but the difficulty to play optimal after that move. And the
human and computer strengths are rather different.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, uurtamo . wrote:
If that's the case, then they should be able to give opinions on best first
moves, best first two move combos, and best first three move combos. That'd
be interesting to see. (Top 10 or so of each).
s.
On Mar 10, 2016 12:37 PM, "Sorin Gherman" <sor...@gmail.com> wrote:
From reading their article, AlphaGo makes no difference at all between
start, middle and endgame.
Just like any other position, the empty (or almost empty, or almost full)
board is just another game position in which it chooses (one of)
the most promising moves in order to maximize her chance of winning.
On Mar 10, 2016 12:31 PM, "uurtamo ." <uurt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quick question - how, mechanically, is the opening being handled by
alpha go and other recent very strong programs? Giant
hand-entered or game-learned joseki books?
Thanks,
steve
On Mar 10, 2016 12:23 PM, "Thomas Wolf" <tw...@brocku.ca> wrote:
My 2 cent:
Recent strong computer programs never loose by a few points.
They are either
crashed before the end game starts (because when being
clearly behind they play more
desperate and weaker moves because they mainly get negative
feadback from
their search with mostly loosing branches and risky play
gives them the only
winning sequences in their search) or they win by resignation
or win
by a few points.
In other words, if a human player playing AlphaGo does not
have a large
advantage already in the middle game, then AlphaGo will win
whether it looks
like it or not (even to a 9p player like Michael Redmond was
surprised
last night about the sudden gain of a number of points by
AlphaGo in the
center in the end game: 4:42:10, 4:43:00, 4:43:28 in the
video https://gogameguru.com/alphago-2/)
In the middle and end game the reduced number of possible
moves and the
precise and fast counting ability of computer programs are
superior. In the
game commentary of the 1st game it was mentioned that Lee
Sedol considers the
opening not to be his strongest part of the game. But with
AlphaGo playing
top pro level even in the opening, a large advantage after
the middle game
might simply be impossible to reach for a human.
About finding weakness:
In the absense of games of AlphaGo to study it might be
interesting to get a general idea by checking out the games
where 7d Zen lost on KGS
recently.
Thomas
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, wing wrote:
One question is whether Lee Sedol knows about these
weaknesses.
Another question is whether he will exploit those
weaknesses.
Lee has a very simple style of play that seems less
ko-oriented
than other players, and this may play into the hands of
Alpha.
Michael Wing
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 [1]
Links:
------
[1]
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
