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.


> Now the situation with go is different.

For what it's worth, I would expect the next release of Zen to make this
achievable as well. Especially if it supports GPU acceleration, and you
have one of those laptops with a GTX 1080 in it :-) But yes, chess is
comparatively further ahead against humans.

> But if we do agree that the problem itself is fundamentally harder,
> (which I believe it is) and we don't want to ascribe its solution simply
> to hardware (which people tried to do with big blue), then we should
> acknowledge that it required more innovation.
> I do agree, and hope that you do, that this innovation is all part of a
> continuum of innovation that is super exciting to understand.

Of course I do. That is the whole point I was making with "appreciating
the sharpened tools".

My objection was to the claim that making Deep Blue didn't require any
innovation or new methods at all. They beat Kasparov in 1997, not 2017!

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 which methods both
programs used.

But I understand where it comes from. SL/RL and DCNN's (more associated
with AlphaGo) seem like a broader hammer than tree search (more
associated with Deep Blue).

Computer-go mailing list

Reply via email to