On 18-08-17 16:56, Petr Baudis wrote: >> Uh, what was the argument again? > > Well, unrelated to what you wrote :-) - that Deep Blue implemented > existing methods in a cool application, while AlphaGo introduced > some very new methods (perhaps not entirely fundamentally, but still > definitely a ground-breaking work).
I just fundamentally disagree with this characterization, which I think is grossly unfair to the Chiptest/Deep Thought/Deep Blue lineage. Remember there were 12 years in-between those programs. They did not just...re-implement the same "existing methods" over and over again all that time. Implementation details and exact workings are very important [1]. I imagine the main reason this false distinction (i.e. the "artificial difference" from my original post) is being made is, IMHO, that you're all aware of the fine nuances of how AlphaGo DCNN usage (for example) differs compared to previous efforts, but you're not aware of the same nuances in Chiptest and successors etc. [1] As is speed, another dirty word in AI circles that is nevertheless damn important for practical performance. -- GCP _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
