How well do you think the mcts-weakness we have witnessed today is hidden in AG? Or, how can one go about exploiting it systematically?
I think it might be well hidden by the value network being very strong and true most of the time - it is much harder to get AG to this state, than traditional mcts bots with much less truthful evaluations. So, what would be Lee's best effort to exploit this? Complicating and playing hopefully-unexpected-tesuji moves? Detlef: Demmis tweeted that the w78 caused b79 mistake, that only surfaced out some ten moves later. Ca you share the development of the value evals during these moves? Did your net fall down right after move 78? What an interesting times we live in :-) Regards, Josef Dne ne 13. 3. 2016 10:33 uživatel Marc Landgraf <mahrgel...@gmail.com> napsal: > Oh, is it possible to provide those variants? Or is there a recording > of the broadcast, reading the board is probably enough to roughly > understand it. > > 2016-03-13 10:32 GMT+01:00 Chun Sun <sunchu...@gmail.com>: > > Hi Marc, > > > > "but did not find a "solution" for Lee Sedol that broke AlphaGos > position" > > -- this is not true. Ke Jie and Gu Li both found more than one way to > break > > the position :) > > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Marc Landgraf <mahrgel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> What is the most interesting part is, that at this point many pro > >> commentators found a lot of aji, but did not find a "solution" for Lee > >> Sedol that broke AlphaGos position. So the question remains: Did > >> AlphaGo find a hole in it's own position and tried to dodge that? Was > >> it too strong for its own good? Or was it a misevaluation due to the > >> immense amounts of aji, which would not result in harm, if played > >> properly? > >> > >> > >> 2016-03-13 9:54 GMT+01:00 Darren Cook <dar...@dcook.org>: > >> > From Demis Hassabis: > >> > When I say 'thought' and 'realisation' I just mean the output of > >> > #AlphaGo value net. It was around 70% at move 79 and then dived > >> > on move 87 > >> > > >> > https://twitter.com/demishassabis/status/708934687926804482 > >> > > >> > Assuming that is an MCTS estimate of winning probability, that 70% > >> > sounds high (i.e. very confident); when I was doing the computer-human > >> > team experiments, on 9x9, with three MCTS programs, I generally knew > I'd > >> > found a winning move when the percentages moved from the 48-52% range > >> > to, say, 55%. > >> > > >> > I really hope they reveal the win estimates for each move of the 5 > >> > games. It will especially be interesting to then compare that to the > >> > other leading MCTS programs. > >> > > >> > Darren > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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
