On 18/08/2017 23:07, uurtamo . wrote: > They run on laptops. A program that could crush a grandmaster will run > on my laptop. That's an assertion I can't prove, but I'm asking you to > verify it or suggest otherwise.
Sure. > Now the situation with go is different. For what it's worth, I would expect the next release of Zen to make this achievable as well. Especially if it supports GPU acceleration, and you have one of those laptops with a GTX 1080 in it :-) But yes, chess is comparatively further ahead against humans. > But if we do agree that the problem itself is fundamentally harder, > (which I believe it is) and we don't want to ascribe its solution simply > to hardware (which people tried to do with big blue), then we should > acknowledge that it required more innovation. > > I do agree, and hope that you do, that this innovation is all part of a > continuum of innovation that is super exciting to understand. Of course I do. That is the whole point I was making with "appreciating the sharpened tools". My objection was to the claim that making Deep Blue didn't require any innovation or new methods at all. They beat Kasparov in 1997, not 2017! There is a secondary argument whether the methods used for Deep Blue generalize as well as the methods used for AlphaGo. I think that argument may not be as simple and clear-cut as Kasparov implied, because for one, there are similarities and crossover in which methods both programs used. But I understand where it comes from. SL/RL and DCNN's (more associated with AlphaGo) seem like a broader hammer than tree search (more associated with Deep Blue). -- GCP _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
