Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Thomas Rohde]

On 2017-10-28 at 16:36, Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> IMO, intuition does not exist; it is nothing but an excuse for not 
> understanding subconscious or currently unobservable thinking yet. Can we 
> speak of human subconscious thinking, please?

Uhm, I always thought the short word for “subconscious thinking” was 
“intuition” ;-)

Reminds me of “A Table is a Table” (orig. “Ein Tisch ist ein Tisch”), a short 
story by Swiss writer Peter Bichsel

—> https://vimeo.com/11331609 (ten minutes video, English version)
—> https://vimeo.com/8749843 (German version)

“What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet”
— Shakespeare


Greetings, Tom

-- 
Thomas Rohde
Wiesenkamp 12, 29646 Bispingen, GERMANY
--
t...@bonobo.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 28.10.2017 11:13, Petri Pitkanen wrote:

Exactly verbalized rules lose to pure analysis power.


(I think with "verbalised" you mean "codified in writing", with "pure 
analysis power" you mean "volume of reading, calculation, sampling or NN 
processing".)


Rules are not meant to win or lose against "pure analysis power" but to 
use it when necessary and unavoidable, e.g., tactical reading when 
clarifying L+D status. A rule can be "Consider an attack if the L+D 
status is 'unsettled'" but also tactical reading determines that status.



Human intuition is trained with endless repetition.


IMO, intuition does not exist; it is nothing but an excuse for not 
understanding subconscious or currently unobservable thinking yet. Can 
we speak of human subconscious thinking, please?


Subconscious thinking can be trained by learning rules, practising 
problems etc. Conscious, explicit thinking can be trained by learning 
rules, practising problems etc. So what do you want to say?


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Petri Pitkanen]

Exactly verbalized rules lose to pure analysis power. Though much chess
intuiton is coded into  evaluation function. Buiding analysis trees to
alfa-beta pruning BUT in quite differently human woudl do it, just basic
idea/ideas are there.

Human intuition is trained with endless repetition. Like IM Jeremy Silman
who went through about hundred games a night while teenager (quite a feat
on actual board) to 'train' his pattern matcher.

I do doubt if anyone coudl codifly that information in fully transferrable
way at all. In teacher-pupil interaction somehow. But as an book, noway.
Hard to say what chess IM is go terms but whole chess Grand master to
Master ranks are within 300 elopoints-. And in upper echelons one Dan rank
is about 250-300 elopoints so IM woudl strongish 6dan perhaps , not quite
7dan.  So 4dan is way better than what I can drema of but still is chess
ranks that woudl be a like Elo 2000 a good player but no way near a master.
So I woudl say that the old way, how ever tedious and non-analytical is
still required to reach the top of game.

But then again teaching method to quickly reach a reasonable strength is
certainly needed. Mayre robert has it, do not know as have not tried

2017-10-28 1:39 GMT+03:00 uurtamo . :

> By way of comparison.
>
> It would be ludicrous to ask a world champion chess player to explain
> their strategy in a "programmable" way. it would certainly result in a
> player much worse than the best computer player, if it were to be coded up,
> even if you spent 40 years decoding intuition, etc, and got it exactly
> correct.
>
> Why do I say this? Because the best human player will lose > 90% of the
> time against the best computer player. And they understand their own
> intuition fairly well.
>
> Do we want to sit down and analyze the best human player's intuition?
> Perhaps. But certainly not to improve the best computer player. It can
> already crush all humans at pretty much every strength.
>
> s.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:
>
>> On 27.10.2017 13:58, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
>>
>>> doubt that your theory is any better than some competing ones.
>>>
>>
>> For some specialised topics, it is evident that my theory is better or
>> belongs to the few applicable theories (often by other amateur-player
>> researchers) worth considering.
>>
>> For a broad sense of "covering every aspect of go theory", I ask: what
>> competing theories? E.g., take verbal theory teaching by professional
>> players and they say, e.g., "Follow the natural flow of the game". I have
>> heard this for decades but still do not have the slightest idea what it
>> might mean. It assumes meaning only if I replace it by my theory. Or they
>> say: "Respect the beauty of shapes!" I have no idea what this means.
>>
>> A few particular professional players have reasonable theories on
>> specific topics and resembling methodical approach occurring in my theories.
>>
>> So what competing theories do you mean?
>>
>> The heritage of professional shape examples? If you want to call that
>> theory.
>>
>> As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different
>>> framework.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but where do they describe it? Almost all professional players I
>> have asked to explain their decision-making have said that they could not
>> because it would be intuition. A framework that is NOT theory.
>>
>>
>> --
>> robert jasiek
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Zero is weaker than Master!?

[Xavier Combelle]

You are totally right it is not the same curves. according to the reddit
post.

So I was totally wrong

> On 27-10-17 10:15, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>> Maybe I'm wrong but both curves for alphago zero looks pretty similar
>> except than the figure 3 is the zoom in of figure 6
> The blue curve in figure 3 is flat at around 60 hours (2.5 days). In
> figure 6, at 2.5 days the line is near vertical. So it is not a zoom.
>
> Maybe this can help you:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/baduk/comments/77hr3b/elo_table_of_alphago_zero_selfplay_games/
>
> Note the huge Elo advantage of the 20 blocks version early on (it can
> learn faster, but stalls out faster).
>

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Zero is weaker than Master!?

[Xavier Combelle]

OK I will reread it attentively


Le 27/10/2017 à 19:19, Hideki Kato a écrit :
> Please read _through_ the paper sequentially.
> #I don't have enough skill to describe the reason because 
> it's not a technical but language issue.
>
> Hideki
>
>> I don't understand which element makes you say that
>> section 2 and 3 are all for a 20 block instance
>>
>>
>> Le 27/10/2017 E01:49, Hideki Kato a écrit :
>>> The 40 block version (2nd instance) first appeared in 
>>> Section 4 in the paper.  Section 2 and 3 are all for the 1st 
>>> instance.
>>>
>>> Hideki
>>>
>>> Xavier Combelle: <39a79a0e-7c7d-2a01-a2ae-573cda8b1...@gmail.com>:
 Unless I mistake figure 3 shows the plot of supervised learning to
 reinforcement learning, not 20 bloc/40 block
 For searching mention of the 20 blocks I search for 20 in the whole
 paper and did not found any other mention
 than of the kifu thing.
 Le 26/10/2017 E15:10, Gian-Carlo Pascutto a écrit :
> On 26-10-17 10:55, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>> It is just wild guesses  based on reasonable arguments but without
>> evidence.
> David Silver said they used 40 layers for AlphaGo Master. That's more
> evidence than there is for the opposite argument that you are trying to
> make. The paper certainly doesn't talk about a "small" and a "big" 
 Master.
> You seem to be arguing from a bunch of misreadings and
> misunderstandings. For example, Figure 3 in the paper shows the Elo 
>> plot
> for the 20 block/40 layer version, and it compares to Alpha Go Lee, not
> Alpha Go Master. The Alpha Go Master line would be above the flattening
> part of the 20 block/40 layer AlphaGo Zero. I guess you missed this 
>> when
> you say that they "only mention it to compare on kifu prediction"?
 ___
 Computer-go mailing list
 Computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go