Thanks for posting this Hiroshi! Nice to see this neural network revival. It is mostly old ideas, and it is not really surprising to me, but with modern compute power everyone can now see that it works really well. BTW for some related work (not cited), people might be interested to read up on the 90s work of Stoutamire, Enderton, Schraudolph and Enzenberger.
Comparing results to old publications is a bit tricky. For example, the things I did in 2001/2002 are reported to achieve around 25% prediction accuracy, which at the time seemed good but is now considered unimpressive. However, in hindsight, an important reason for that number was time pressure and lack of compute power, which is not really related to anything fundamental. Nowadays using nearly the same training mechanism, but with more data and more capacity to learn (i.e., a bigger network), I also get pro-results around 40%. In case you're interested, this paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4220.pdf by Thomas Wolf has a figure with more recent results (the latest version of Steenvreter is still a little bit better though). Another problem with comparing results is the difficulty to obtain independent test data. I don't think that was done optimally in this case. The problem is that, especially for amateur games, there are a lot of people memorizing and repeating the popular sequences. Also, if you're not careful, it is quite easy to get duplicate games in you dataset (I've had cases where one game was annotated in chinese, and the other (duplicate) in English, or where the board was simply rotated). My solution around this was to always test on games from the most recent pro-tournaments, for which I was certain they could not yet be in the training database. However, even that may not be perfect, because also pro's play popular joseki, which means there will at least be lots of duplicate opening positions. I'm not surprised these systems now work very well as stand alone players against weak opponents. Some years ago David and Thore's move predictors managed to beat me once in a 9-stones handicap game, which indicates that also their system was already stronger than GNU Go. Further, the version of Steenvreter in my Android app at its lowest level is mostly just a move predictor, yet it still wins well over 80% of its games. In my experience, when the strength difference is big, and the game is even, it is usually enough for the strong player to only play good shape moves. The move predictors only break down in complex tactical situations where some form of look-ahead is critical, and the typical shape-related proverbs provide wrong answers. Erik On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Hiroshi Yamashita <y...@bd.mbn.or.jp> wrote: > > Hi, > > This paper looks very cool. > > Teaching Deep Convolutional Neural Networks to Play Go > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.3409v1.pdf > > Thier move prediction got 91% winrate against GNU Go and 14% > against Fuego in 19x19. > > Regards, > Hiroshi Yamashita > > _______________________________________________ > 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
