I would not place too much confidence in the observers. Even though they are pro players, they don't have the same degree of concentration as the game's participants, and they have an obligation to speak about the game on a regular basis which further deteriorates analytic skills. Figuring out where a player went wrong will take much longer than it takes to play the game.
If you really want good insight, better to use several programs to play out games based on moves that they collectively propose, with the additional ability to take moves from a human. Over a period of days you can get quite strong analysis, even if the players are not that strong. There was a great paper describing the method from a few years ago. -----Original Message----- From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Marc Landgraf Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 5:26 AM To: computer-go@computer-go.org Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight 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
