I enjoyed that long read, GCP!
> There is a secondary argument whether the methods used for Deep Blue>
> generalize as well as the methods used for AlphaGo. I think that
> argument may not be as simple and clear-cut as Kasparov implied,
> because for one, there are similarities and crossover in
On 18/08/2017 23:07, uurtamo . wrote:
> They run on laptops. A program that could crush a grandmaster will run
> on my laptop. That's an assertion I can't prove, but I'm asking you to
> verify it or suggest otherwise.
Sure.
> Now the situation with go is different.
For what it's worth, I would
On 18/08/2017 20:34, Petr Baudis wrote:
> 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
Gian-Carlo,
I only ask, not to be snippy or impolite, but because I have just exactly
enough knowledge to be dangerous enough to have no freaking idea what I'm
talking about wrt chess research, and by way of introduction, let me say
that I've seen some people talk about (and a coworker at my
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
> >
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
GCP wrote:
> Maybe we should stop inventing artificial differences and appreciate
> that the tools in our toolbox have become much sharper over the years.
Amen.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
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
On 17.08.2017 21:35, Darren Cook wrote:
The machine-learning methods AlphaGo uses are applicable to practically
anything."
They (alone) are not good for guaranteed avoiding of mistakes (as is
achieved by theorems), or for guaranteed permanent execution by their
software, hardware, power
