I think you're correct, Thomas. The challenge is going to be getting ANY professional to be the one who "takes handicap stones" for the first time in years. The possible "shame" of doing so is what will make it messy.
Once someone does take that step, though, I think it is only a matter of time before the rating of humans will be made a subordinate rating relative to the "objective" rating of the AIs, AlphaGo just being the first. And that has its own psychological challenges as the Go world has many decades of handling ELOs and rankings for humans. So, I don't think change in this area is going to be welcomed anytime soon. On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Wolf <tw...@brocku.ca> wrote: > Chris, > > Prompted from a discussion on the computer go email list > (and my last email today) : > > We currently have no measure at all to judge how safe a winor loss is at > any > stage of the game. The measure applied currently of counting territory does > only apply if both players try to maximize territory but not if at least > one > player maximizes the chance of winning. (I know, it was mentioned already). > > But really, comments like "Player ... is catching up" are pretty > meaningless > and are only valid if one explicitly mentions points or territorry, and > adds > that this has nothing to do with winning probabilities. > > Even the winning percentages provided by the computer programs themselves > are > no real indicator for winninig chances. They are tools to find the best > move > and are a statistical measure over several playout sequences based on > selfplay > not based on play against that opponent. Equally, winning percentages > worked > out by other computer programs are also not adequate (although they are at > least unbiased) because they do also not use the real opponents to play out > the sequences. > > The only valid strength indicator would be to gradually increase handicap > stones or komi for the previous loser in a series of games. > > Regards, > Thomas > > > On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Sorin Gherman wrote: > > >> It is fascinating indeed to try to find how much stronger is AlphaGo >> compared to top humans. >> >> Given the fact that it is hard to find the reason why Lee Sedol lost, and >> that AlphaGo seems to get mysteriously ahead without a clear reason, tells >> me that the difference is definitely more than one stone handicap, maybe >> 2+ >> stones, as crazy as it may sound given Lee Sedol's level. >> >> I am pretty sure he will not accept to play with handicap against AlphaGo >> though. Maybe "younger wolves" like Ke Jie will though and we will find >> out. >> >> On Mar 12, 2016 11:03 AM, "Thomas Wolf" <tw...@brocku.ca> wrote: >> A suggestion for possible future games to be arranged between >> AlphaGo and >> strong players: >> >> Whoever lost shall be given 1 stone or the equivalent of 1/2 >> stone handcap in the >> next game. Games should continue until each side has won at >> least once. This >> way AlphaGo will be forced to demonstrate its full strength over >> a whole game >> which we are all too curious to see. >> >> Thomas >> >> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Aja Huang wrote: >> >> Thanks all. AlphaGo has won the match against Lee >> Sedol. But there are still 2 games to play. >> Aja >> >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Jim O'Flaherty >> <jim.oflaherty...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It was exhilerating to witness history being >> made! Awesome! >> >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:17 AM, David Fotland >> <fotl...@smart-games.com> wrote: >> >> Tremendous games by AlphaGo. Congratulations! >> >> >> >> From: Computer-go >> [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On >> Behalf Of Lukas van de Wiel >> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 12:14 AM >> To: computer-go@computer-go.org >> Subject: [Computer-go] Congratulations to >> AlphaGo >> >> >> >> Whoa, what a fight! Well fought, and well won! >> >> Lukas >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
