On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 06:31:54PM +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> On 18-08-17 16:56, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >> 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).
>
> I just fundamentally disagree with this characterization, which I think
> is grossly unfair to the Chiptest/Deep Thought/Deep Blue lineage.
> Remember there were 12 years in-between those programs.
>
> They did not just...re-implement the same "existing methods" over and
> over again all that time. Implementation details and exact workings are
> very important [1]. I imagine the main reason this false distinction
> (i.e. the "artificial difference" from my original post) is being made
> is, IMHO, that you're all aware of the fine nuances of how AlphaGo DCNN
> usage (for example) differs compared to previous efforts, but you're not
> aware of the same nuances in Chiptest and successors etc.
You may be completely right! And yes, I was thinking about Deep Blue
in isolation, not that aware about general computer chess history. Do
you have some suggested reading regarding Deep Blue and its lineage and
their contributions to the field of AI at large?
Thanks,
--
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
