Hi there.
I do agree with your point Robert Waite.
I have yet seen no such paper as one that would prove that there is such thing
as scalability based on any mathematical proofs.
So all your points at criticizing the mathematical certainty of the
scalability, is probably 100% right. There is
erm.
you guys seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing,
without a clear or precise definition of what you're even
arguing about.
there is a mathematical proof that go, for any fixed sized
board, can be completely solved.
there is a mathematical proof that given a fixed komi and
fixed number
Steve,
You mentioned three proofs relating to go... could you post the links to the
papers?
it makes no sense to ask if there is a mathematical proof
of anything related to humans.
I didn't ask for a mathematical proof saying if a computer can beat a human.
I asked in a roundabout way if this
Robert Waite wrote:
whether or not computers can beat humans at go on a
19x19 board in a reasonable amount of time is unrelated
to mathematics.
Why? Let's say you can prove that the game is solvable so that black
wins. Let's say that you can prove that it is solvable in linear time.
You
* whether or not computers can beat humans at go on a
* 19x19 board in a reasonable amount of time is unrelated
* to mathematics.*
Because solving the game is not a prerequesite for beating the humans.
There are very obvious examples(chess)
I never questioned that. The way I read Steve's
You mentioned three proofs relating to go... could you post the links to the
papers?
the first two statements are consequences of the following:
all two-person, finite, zero-sum games have solutions. *
for a more precise statement, see john von neumann's 1928 paper:
Von Neumann, J: Zur
* The MCTS technique appears to be extremely scalable. The theoretical
* * papers about it claim that it scales up to perfect play in theory.
** We agree here that this is not true of course.
*
No, I think we disagree this time my friend!
Monte Carlo of course by itself is not
Robert Waite skrev:
* The MCTS technique appears to be extremely scalable. The theoretical
* * papers about it claim that it scales up to perfect play in theory.
** We agree here that this is not true of course.
*
No, I think we disagree this time my friend!
Monte Carlo of
MC/UCT is provably scalable up to perfect play.
Really? Could you send me a link to the paper? I think we must have a
different definition for some word. Perfect play? Are you saying that we
have proven that the 19x19 go board has a perfect path for black? I did not
realize we knew so much about
It's the tree search part where everything is happening. Eventually,
enough of the tree is explored to find a win or prove a loss.
- Don
On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 20:11 +0100, Raymond Wold wrote:
Dan Andersson wrote:
No more incredible than that Mini-Max and Alpha-Beta will generate
perfect
Hmm.. I dunno.. I think there are a lot of ideas floating around but some
miscommunications.
So the aim is to devise a computer that will beat the strongest human
players of go.
I hear that Monte-Carlo with UCT is proven to be scalable to perfect play.
It seems that this is essentially saying...
On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 15:19 -0400, Robert Waite wrote:
Hmm.. I dunno.. I think there are a lot of ideas floating around but
some miscommunications.
So the aim is to devise a computer that will beat the strongest human
players of go.
I hear that Monte-Carlo with UCT is proven to be
I don't know how you can say that. The empirical evidence is
overwhelming that this is scalable in a practical way but more
importantly it's been PROVEN to be scalable. If you throw the word
practical in there then you are no longer talking the language of
mathematics, theory and proofs so
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Robert Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Okay.. so where is the paper that correlates the speed at which MCwUCT
approaches perfect play with the ability to play a human? They seem
unrelated as of yet.
The closest I've seen are these two studies Don made:
Robert,
Do you know what Occam's razor is?
Einstein originally believed that the universe was static. When this
didn't fit his observations he invented the cosmological constant,
which he considered one of his biggest blunders.
If we are going to continue to discuss this, then if you
Well... I think I have hunches just as you do. And I think we both express
our hunches on here.
Diminishing returns is not really my theory.. I am just looking at
alternative ways of viewing the datapoints. Let's say you have two computers
and both of them focus only on solving local situations.
On Aug 10, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Robert Waite wrote:
Exhaustive search is scalable in that I could give it all the
memory and time it wanted. And it would approach a finite amount of
memory and a finite amount of time.
Yes, but exhausitve search does not improve your player by 63% (eg.)
for a
17 matches
Mail list logo
