On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:06:41AM +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > On 17-08-17 21:35, Darren Cook wrote: > > "I'm sure some things were learned about parallel processing... but the > > real science was known by the 1997 rematch... but AlphaGo is an entirely > > different thing. Deep Blue's chess algorithms were good for playing > > chess very well. The machine-learning methods AlphaGo uses are > > applicable to practically anything." > > > > Agree or disagree? > > Deep Thought (the predecessor of Deep Blue) used a Supervised Learning > approach to set the initial evaluation weights. The details might be > lost in time but it's reasonable to assume some were carried over to > Deep Blue. Deep Blue itself used hill-climbing to find evaluation > features that did not seem to correlate with strength much, and improve > them. > > A lot of the strength of AlphaGo comes from a fast, parallelized tree > search. > > Uh, what was the argument again?
Well, unrelated to what you wrote :-) - that Deep Blue implemented existing methods in a cool application, while AlphaGo introduced some very new methods (perhaps not entirely fundamentally, but still definitely a ground-breaking work). And I completely agree with that argument. Nonwithstanding, it's clear that AlphaGo's methods take advantage of many convenient properties of Go and there's still a lot to do. I liked Andrej Karpathy's summary on this: https://medium.com/@karpathy/alphago-in-context-c47718cb95a5 -- Petr Baudis, Rossum Run before you walk! Fly before you crawl! Keep moving forward! If we fail, I'd rather fail really hugely. -- Moist von Lipwig _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go