On 18/10/2017 22:00, Brian Sheppard via Computer-go wrote: > This paper is required reading. When I read this team’s papers, I think > to myself “Wow, this is brilliant! And I think I see the next step.” > When I read their next paper, they show me the next *three* steps.
Hmm, interesting way of seeing it. Once they had Lee Sedol AlphaGo, it was somewhat obvious that just self-playing that should lead to an improved policy and value net. And before someone accuses me of Captain Hindsighting here, this was pointed out on this list: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2017-January/009786.html It looks to me like the real devil is in the details. Don't use a residual stack? -600 Elo. Don't combine the networks? -600 Elo. Bootstrap the learning? -300 Elo We made 3 perfectly reasonable choices and somehow lost 1500 Elo along the way. I can't get over that number, actually. Getting the details right makes a difference. And they're getting them right, either because they're smart, because of experience from other domains, or because they're trying a ton of them. I'm betting on all 3. -- GCP _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
