"Who cares if the best chess program is 400 or 600 points stonger than best human. They are strong enough."
This is a very limited view of this domain to think the only intention in creating a Go AI is to play against humans and beat them. There is a much larger and richer world of values we get to explore, both inside and outside of Go, as we continue to progress on this. I want AI players MUCH stronger than humans are at the current time. And I think there are many who would like to see much stronger programs than humans for plenty of reasons. One is to see where humans have gotten stuck in local optimas playing with each other exclusively. Another is we will learn all sorts of things about the limits and biases of human cognition from an AI player who becomes a better and better teacher. Another, the closer the computer gets to playing "ideal Go", the more some of us will enjoy the utter beauty of its producing something human minds could not directly perceive much less achieve. I am sure there are others. These were the ones that just sprung to mind without much effort. On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Petri Pitkanen <petri.t.pitka...@gmail.com> wrote: > Even though the chess SW analyzes less positions/second than earlier it > does not mean it is less dependent of good HW. Complex move selection and > smart evaluation do need more CPU as well. There are advances like NULL > move pruning that reduce the amount of CPU required but still it is very > much HW sport. > > Though just about nay modern phone/laptop had enough of juice to beat any > human, So it is rather boring anyway. Who cares if the best chess program > is 400 or 600 points stonger than best human. They are strong enough. > > In go getting pro strenght to a mobile phone may take quite a while > > Petri > > 2016-03-13 21:55 GMT+02:00 Brian Cloutier <briancloutier2...@gmail.com>: > >> > not because of a new better algorithm but because the Deep Blue's >> 11.38 GFLOP power is available on desktop from about 2006F >> >> This isn't true, modern chess engines look at far fewer positions than >> Deep Blue did. >> >> From wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_chess>: "Chess >> engines continue to improve. In 2009, chess engines running on slower >> hardware have reached the grandmaster level. A mobile phone won a category >> 6 tournament with a performance rating 2898: chess engine Hiarcs 13 running >> inside Pocket Fritz 4 on the mobile phone HTC Touch HD won the Copa >> Mercosur tournament in Buenos Aires, Argentina with 9 wins and 1 draw on >> August 4–14, 2009.[20] Pocket Fritz 4 searches fewer than 20,000 positions >> per second.[21] This is in contrast to supercomputers such as Deep Blue >> that searched 200 million positions per second." >> >> From Quora >> <https://www.quora.com/How-does-Deep-Blues-playing-strength-and-algorithms-compare-to-modern-chess-engines-eg-Houdini/answer/Andrew-Ng-4>: >> " In such, it could calculate 200 million moves per second. This raw, >> brute-force approach made Deep Blue such a challenge to Kasparov. Today, >> the strength of engines like Deep Fritz, Houdini, and Rybka is rooted in >> the software rather than the dedicated chess hardware. These engines are >> far more efficient, using specialized heuristics to evaluate far less moves >> than Deep Blue, but to a greater depth of variation. For comparison, a >> decent personal computer running Rybka can evaluate up to 8 million moves >> per second" >> >> I agree that Google is likely to move on but AlphaGo is by no means the >> final word in computer go. I'm excited to see the developments that will be >> required to make a program with the same strength possible on your phone. >> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:17 AM Рождественский Дмитрий < >> divx4...@yandex.ru> wrote: >> >>> I think that a desktop computer's calculating power appear to develop to >>> a necessary level sooner then the algorithm may be optimized to use the >>> power nowdays available. For example, I belive that chess programs run on a >>> desktop well not because of a new better algotrithm but because the Deep >>> Blue's 11.38 GFLOP power is available on desktop from about 2006, in ten >>> years only. So I think the speculation that Deep Mind will change the >>> objective to a more advanced task is right :) >>> >>> Dmitry >>> >>> 11.03.2016, 14:28, "Darren Cook" <dar...@dcook.org>: >>> >>> global, more long-term planning. A rumour so far suggests to have >>> used the >>> >>> time for more learning, but I'd be surprised if this should have >>> sufficed. >>> >> >>> >> My personal hypothesis so far is that it might - the REINFORCE might >>> >> scale amazingly well and just continuous application of it... >>> > >>> > Agreed. What they have built is a training data generator, that can >>> > churn out 9-dan level moves, 24 hours a day. Over the years I've had to >>> > throw away so many promising ideas because they came down to needing a >>> > 9-dan pro to, say, do the tedious job of ranking all legal moves in >>> each >>> > test position. >>> > >>> > What I'm hoping Deep Mind will do next is study how to maintain the >>> same >>> > level but using less hardware, until they can shrink it down to run on, >>> > say, a high-end desktop computer. The knowledge gained obviously has a >>> > clear financial benefit just in running costs, and computer-go is a >>> nice >>> > objective domain to measure progress. (But the cynic in me suspects >>> > they'll just move to the next bright and shiny AI problem.) >>> > >>> > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
