Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

On 14.03.2016 03:17, Horace Ho wrote: According this analysis, move 78 is not a "miracle" move ... http://card.weibo.com/article/h5/s#cid=23041853a2e03d0102w6rl; I have not had time to verify the tactics by reading yet but suppose this webpage's sequences are right, move 78 and the preceding

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

According this analysis, move 78 is not a "miracle" move ... http://card.weibo.com/article/h5/s#cid=23041853a2e03d0102w6rl; On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Martin Mueller wrote: > On Mar 13, 2016, at 6:00 AM, computer-go-requ...@computer-go.org wrote: > > > So, what

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

On Mar 13, 2016, at 6:00 AM, computer-go-requ...@computer-go.org wrote: > >> So, what would be Lee's best effort to exploit this? Complicating >> and playing hopefully-unexpected-tesuji moves? Judging from this game, setting up multiple interrelated tactical fights, such that no subset of them

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

There is no way to not know that O10 was dead after white plays O9, since AlphaGo handled much more complicated fights even in the games in October. My only guess from looking at the sequence around O10, where black makes its own big group bigger is that it was preparing for a ko-fight, and

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

PM To: computer-go@computer-go.org Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight > You are right, but from fig 2 of the paper can see, that mc and value > network should give similar results: > > 70% value network should be comparable to 60-65% MC winrate from this > paper, u

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

> You are right, but from fig 2 of the paper can see, that mc and value > network should give similar results: > > 70% value network should be comparable to 60-65% MC winrate from this > paper, usually expected around move 140 in a "human expert game" (what > ever this means in this figure :)

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

And a related question from a fellow "beginner": At what point was that group actually dead? On 03/13/2016 07:55 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote: Should we understand that AlphaGo had not understood that O10 was dead ? (sorry for Go beginner question :-) ) On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Detlef

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

Should we understand that AlphaGo had not understood that O10 was dead ? (sorry for Go beginner question :-) ) On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Detlef Schmicker wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > You are right, but from fig 2 of the paper can see, that

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You are right, but from fig 2 of the paper can see, that mc and value network should give similar results: 70% value network should be comparable to 60-65% MC winrate from this paper, usually expected around move 140 in a "human expert game" (what

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

2016-03-13 17:54 GMT+09:00 Darren Cook : > From Demis Hassabis: > When I say 'thought' and 'realisation' I just mean the output of > #AlphaGo value net. It was around 70% at move 79 and then dived > on move 87 > >

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

To: computer-go@computer-go.org Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight What is the most interesting part is, that at this point many pro commentators found a lot of aji, but did not find a "solution" for Lee Sedol that broke AlphaGos position. So the question remains: Did AlphaGo f

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 13.03.2016 um 11:28 schrieb Josef Moudrik: > How well do you think the mcts-weakness we have witnessed today is > hidden in AG? Or, how can one go about exploiting it > systematically? > > I think it might be well hidden by the value network

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

How well do you think the mcts-weakness we have witnessed today is hidden in AG? Or, how can one go about exploiting it systematically? I think it might be well hidden by the value network being very strong and true most of the time - it is much harder to get AG to this state, than traditional

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

Hi Marc, "but did not find a "solution" for Lee Sedol that broke AlphaGos position" -- this is not true. Ke Jie and Gu Li both found more than one way to break the position :) On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Marc Landgraf wrote: > What is the most interesting part is,

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

What is the most interesting part is, that at this point many pro commentators found a lot of aji, but did not find a "solution" for Lee Sedol that broke AlphaGos position. So the question remains: Did AlphaGo find a hole in it's own position and tried to dodge that? Was it too strong for its own

Re: [Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Interesting, my value net does the same, even it was trained totally different from 7d+ games :) Am 13.03.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Darren Cook: > From Demis Hassabis: When I say 'thought' and 'realisation' I just > mean the output of #AlphaGo value net.

[Computer-go] Game 4: a rare insight

From Demis Hassabis: When I say 'thought' and 'realisation' I just mean the output of #AlphaGo value net. It was around 70% at move 79 and then dived on move 87 https://twitter.com/demishassabis/status/708934687926804482 Assuming that is an MCTS estimate of winning probability, that 70%