Just as an aside,
One nice thing about having "expert" chess players is the ability to easily
discover cheating and to estimate the "player rank" of any move. Because
the computer is effectively an oracle for that game, it gives incidental
feedback about strength of any given move.
steve
On Feb 3
On 04.02.2016 02:52, David Ongaro wrote:
At the same time I've to point out that you seem to plan to get very old.
I will not see the solution, which needs at least another 400 years
unless computers learn to research.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer
On 03 Feb 2016, at 06:58, Robert Jasiek wrote:
>
> On 03.02.2016 15:34, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:
>> Best of luck finding your way through your meaning and value (emotional)
>> reintegration of this newest reality update.
>
> Nothing has changed (or will change when "brute force" surpasses top human
Hello !
I would like to share with this list the possibility to participate
forecasting on the forecoming game,
"Will Google's AlphaGo beat world champion Lee Sedol in the five game Go
match planned for March 2016?"
That is posted in the Good Judgement Project open forecasting site.
https://www
On 03.02.2016 15:34, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:
BTW, I have my own personal aspirations which have been thwarted by this
development. I have several thousand hours of doing my own research and
development [...] although I
will likely drift further away from Go as the focal point of motivation.
Maybe
Robert,
How have these things emerged in the chess AI world following Deep Blue and
Kasperov's loss over a decade ago? To what degree does "human expert
details of chess theory matters" (where the term "matters" is pretty
squishy). From what I can see, that is not what happened and while I am not
I searched for the file name on the web and found this copy:
http://airesearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/deepmind-mastering-go.pdf
Álvaro.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Oliver Lewis wrote:
> Is the paper still available for download? The direct link appears to be
> broken.
>
> Thanks
>
Hi!
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:24:51AM +0100, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> AlphaGo is said to predict 57% of professionals' moves. How is this number
> measured and from which sample?
>
> At some turns, there is only one correct move - at other turns, strong go
> players would say that there are seve
The current fashion favours general AI approaches forgoing knowledge
details. Given enough calculation power applied to well chosen AI
techiques, many knowledge details are redundant because they are
generated automatically: AlphaGo does play (at least some) ko fights
with ko threats, tesujis,
Is the paper still available for download? The direct link appears to be
broken.
Thanks
Oliver
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Igor Polyakov
wrote:
> I think it would be an awesome commercial product for strong Go players.
> Maybe even if the AI shows the continuations and the score estimates
AlphaGo is said to predict 57% of professionals' moves. How is this
number measured and from which sample?
At some turns, there is only one correct move - at other turns, strong
go players would say that there are several valid supposedly correct
moves. This is one of the reasons why 100% cann
11 matches
Mail list logo
