i think similar approaches have been done. I can recall seeing it. Though
in Backgammon they did train only by endresult and seemed to work fine.
Originally anyway, now the have separate NN-for certain phases of the game
2016-01-30 18:07 GMT+02:00 Xavier Combelle :
> I had got an idea but I don't
According to John Tromp et al at http://tromp.github.io/go/legal.html
the number of legal 19x19 go positions is
P19 =
2081681993819799846
9947863334486277028
6522453884530548425
6394568209274196127
3801537852564845169
8519643907259916015
6281285460898883144
2712971531931755773
6620397247064840935
Hi Josef,
thanks for the links to your interesting projects.
In general, I think CNNs are sort of our new hammer. We should
walk around (in our Go universe) and test the hammer on all possible
questions...
Perhaps we have reached iron age now, after (Crazy)Stone age...
Ingo.
Gesendet: Samstag
dear Robert,
> The number G19 of legal games under a given go ruleset is unknown.
It will never be known since there's not enough space in the known
universe to write it down. We're talking about a number with over
10^100 digits.
> For positional
> superko (prohibition of recreation of the same
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 03:20:16PM +, Greg Schmidt wrote:
> The articles I've read so far about AlphaGo mention both MCTS and
> RL/Q-Learning. Since MCTS (and certainly UCT) keeps statistics on wins and
> propagates that information up the tree, that in and of itself would seem to
> constit
The articles I've read so far about AlphaGo mention both MCTS and
RL/Q-Learning. Since MCTS (and certainly UCT) keeps statistics on wins and
propagates that information up the tree, that in and of itself would seem to
constitute RL, so how does it make sense to have both? It seems redundant to
How about you read the paper first? The conversation would make much more
sense if you actually spent some time trying to understand the details of
what they did. :) <-- (mandatory smiley to indicate I am not upset or
anything)
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Greg Schmidt
wrote:
> The articl
On 31.01.2016 17:19, John Tromp wrote:
It will never be known since there's not enough space in the known
universe to write it down. We're talking about a number with over
10^100 digits.
How do you know that an implicit expression (of length smaller than
10^80) of the number does not exist? :)
dear Robert,
>> It will never be known since there's not enough space in the known
>> universe to write it down. We're talking about a number with over
>> 10^100 digits.
>
> How do you know that an implicit expression (of length smaller than 10^80)
> of the number does not exist? :)
Of course an
You must be kidding about Lee Sedol.
Yes, he is not as dominating as before. (is it because he is weaker or
because the other ones got better?)
But he is still #3 in Korea having only dropped there this month,
being #2 for most of the last year. (btw overtaken by Park Younghoon,
who is not really
Hello Gengyang,
welcome in the new group.
> ... that mankind has been eclipsed.
No, not at all.
But you may make a career by applying CNNs to fields which looked
hopeles so far for botsd (and robots).
> ... 9×9 board: ~1.039 × 10^3813×13 board: ~3.724 × 10^7917×17 board: ...
Do you know
Ingo and all,
Why you care AlphaGo and DCNN so much? Surely DeepMind team did
a big leap but the big problems, such as detecting double-ko and
solving complex positions are left unchanged. Also it's well
known that to attack these weakpoint of MCTS bots, the
opponents have to be strong enoug
Let me add my congratulations to the chorus. Well done!
I'm due for a sabbatical next year. I had been joking, "It sure would be
good timing if someone cracked Go right before that started. Then I'd have
plenty of time to pick a new research topic." It looks like AlphaGo has
provided.
On Wed, Jan
> You must be kidding about Lee Sedol.
> ...
> So he was by far the biggest fish Google could ever catch for that
> game, for Go insiders as well as for people outside the Go scene.
Well said, Marc.
In terms of name recognition and domination in the past decade,
who else but Lee Sedol should be p
y UCT) keeps statistics on wins
> and
> > propagates that information up the tree, that in and of itself would seem
> > to constitute RL, so how does it make sense to have both? It seems
> > redundant to me. Any thoughts on that?
> >
Hi Peter,
> I'm due for a sabbatical next year. I had been joking, "It sure would be good
> timing if someone cracked Go right before that started. Then I'd have plenty
> of time to pick a new research topic." It looks like AlphaGo has provided.
you are not the only one in such a situation
On 31.01.2016 20:28, Peter Drake wrote:
pick a new research topic.
- explain by the program to human players why MC / DNN play is good in
terms of human understanding of the game
- incorporate the difficult parts, such as long-term aji
- solve the game: prove the correct score, prove a weak s
Just in case that no one knows it. Ke Jie has publicly announced that he is
willing to play against AlphaGo, even without any prize money. Since Ke Jie
is absolutely the current No.1, it would be a good choice to have another
match with Ke Jie, time permitting, no matter AlphaGo wins or loses again
It might even be interesting if it took place *before* the lee sedol match.
s.
On Jan 31, 2016 5:09 PM, "Chaohao Pan" wrote:
> Just in case that no one knows it. Ke Jie has publicly announced that he
> is willing to play against AlphaGo, even without any prize money. Since Ke
> Jie is absolutely
On 31.01.2016 19:57, John Tromp wrote:
What is your best estimate of point where where chances are even?
I do not know.
what numbers the press could use that are not too arbitrary.
- The number P of legal positions.
- An empirical average number I of available intersections for the next
mo
Why would they water down their Lee Sedol game by announcing another
game before their big game has even happened? No matter if that game
would be before or after.
Sounds like an awful PR strategy.
2016-02-01 2:51 GMT+01:00 uurtamo . :
> It might even be interesting if it took place *before* the l
Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de:
>On 31.01.2016 20:28, Peter Drake wrote:
>> pick a new research topic.
>
>[a bunch of topics]
I have another topic suggestion. Deep learning needs tons of data. Humans reach
top performance after seeing far, far fewer examples than AlphaGo sees.
Whatever method hum
Explaining why the move is good in human terms is useless goal. Good chess
programs cannot do it nor it is meaningful. As the humans and computers
have vastly different approach to selecting a move then by the definition
have reasons for moves. As an example your second item 'long-term aji', For
h
23 matches
Mail list logo
