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

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

[Hideki Kato]

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
-- 
Hideki Kato 
___
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!?

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

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).

-- 
GCP
___
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]

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

Le 27 oct. 2017 04:31, "Gian-Carlo Pascutto"  a écrit :

> Figure 6 has the same graph as Figure 3 but for 40 blocks. You can compare
> the Elo.
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 23:35 Xavier Combelle 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 à 15:10, 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
>
> --
>
> GCP
>
> ___
> 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!?

[Hideki Kato]

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 à 15:10, 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
-- 
Hideki Kato 
___
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!?

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Figure 6 has the same graph as Figure 3 but for 40 blocks. You can compare
the Elo.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 23:35 Xavier Combelle 
wrote:

> 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 à 15:10, 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

-- 

GCP
___
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!?

[Brian Sheppard via Computer-go]

I would add that "wild guesses based on not enough info" is an indispensable 
skill.

-Original Message-
From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of 
Hideki Kato
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:17 AM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Zero is weaker than Master!?

Xavier Combelle: <62b977d7-d227-a74d-04b7-0d46db6a7...@gmail.com>:
>It is just wild guesses  based on reasonable arguments but without 
>evidence.


Yes, of course. Due to not enough info provided by Google.

Hideki


>Le 26/10/2017
à 07:51, Hideki Kato a écrit :
>> You can believe
>>> 
Of what I understand same network architecture imply the same number of
>>> block
>> 
but David Silver told AlphaGo Master used 40 layers in 
>> 
May. 
>> http://www.bestchinanews.com/Science-Technology/1
0371.html
>> # The paper was submitted in April.

>>
>> Usually, network "architecture" does not imply the num
ber of 
>> layers whereas "configulation" may do.

>>
>> Clearly they made 40 layers version first because it's
 
>> called "1st instance" where the 80 layers one is called
 "2nd 
>> instance."  The 1st was trained 3 days and overtoo
k AlphaGo 
>> Lee.  Then they changed to the 2nd.  Awaring t
his fact, and 
>> watching the growing curve of the 1st, I g
uess 40 layers was 
>> not enough to reach AlphaGo Master le
vel and so they 
>> doubled the layers.

>>
>> Hideki

>>
>> Xavier Combelle: <1550c907-8b96-e4ea-1f5e-2344f394b967
@gmail.com>:
>>> As I understand the paper they directly cre
ated alphago zero with a 40 
>>> block

>>> setup.
>>> They just made a reduced 20 block setup to co
mpare on kifu prediction
>>> (as far as I searched in the pa
per, it is the only
>>> place where they mention the 20 bloc
k setup)
>>> They specifically mention comparing several ver
sion of their software.
>>> with various parameter

>>> If the number of block was an important parameter I hope they would

>>> mention it.

>>> Of course they are a lot of things that they try and failed and we 
>>> will

>>> not know about

>>> But I have hard time to believe that alphago zero with a 20 block is 
>>> one

>>> of them

>>> About the paper, there is no mention of the number of block of master:

>>> "AlphaGo Master is the program that defeated top human players by 
>>> 600

>>> in January, 2017 34 .

>>> It was previously unpublished but uses the same neural network

>>> architecture, reinforcement

>>> learning algorithm, and MCTS algorithm as described in this paper.

>>> However, it uses the

>>> same handcrafted features and rollouts as AlphaGo Lee

>>> and training was initialised by

>>> supervised learning from human data."

>>> Of what I understand same network architecture imply the same number 
>>> of

>>> block

>>> Le 25/10/2017 à 17:58, Xavier Combelle a écrit :

>>>> I understand better

>>>> Le 25/10/2017 à 04:28, Hideki Kato a écrit :

>>>>> Are you thinking the 1st instance could reach Master level

>>>>> if giving more training days?

>>>>> I don't think so.  The performance would be stopping

>>>>> improving at 3 days.  If not, why they built the 2nd

>>>>> instance?

>>>>> Best,

>>>>> Hideki

>>>>> Xavier Combelle: <05c04de1-59c4-8fcd-2dd1-094faabf3...@gmail.com>:

>>>>>> How is it a fair comparison if there is only 3 days of training 
>>>>>> for

>>> Zero ?

>>>>>> Master had longer training no ? Moreover, Zero has bootstrap 
>>>>>> problem

>>>>>> because at the opposite of Master it don't learn from expert 
>>>>>> games

>>>>>> which means that it is likely to be weaker with little training.

>>>>>> Le 24/10/2017 à 20:20, Hideki Kato a écrit :

>>>>>>> David Silver told Master used 40 layers network in May. 

>>>>>>> According to new paper, Master used the same architecture

>>>>>>> as Zero.  So, Master used 20 blocks ResNet.  

>>>>>>> The first instance of Zero, 20 blocks ResNet version, is

>>>>>>> weaker than Master (after 3 days training).  So, with the

>>>>>>> same layers (a fair comparison) Zero is weaker than

>>>>>>> Master.

>>>>>>> Hideki

>>>>>> ___

>>>>>> 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
--
Hideki Kato <mailto:hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp> 
___
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]

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 à 15:10, 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

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

[Hideki Kato]

Xavier Combelle: <62b977d7-d227-a74d-04b7-0d46db6a7...@gmail.com>:
>It is just wild guesses  based on reasonable arguments but without 
>evidence.


Yes, of course. Due to not enough info provided by Google.

Hideki


>Le 26/10/2017 
à 07:51, Hideki Kato a écrit :
>> You can believe
>>> 
Of what I understand same network architecture imply the 
same number of
>>> block
>> 
but David Silver told AlphaGo Master used 40 layers in 
>> 
May. 
>> http://www.bestchinanews.com/Science-Technology/1
0371.html
>> # The paper was submitted in April.

>>
>> Usually, network "architecture" does not imply the num
ber of 
>> layers whereas "configulation" may do.

>>
>> Clearly they made 40 layers version first because it's
 
>> called "1st instance" where the 80 layers one is called
 "2nd 
>> instance."  The 1st was trained 3 days and overtoo
k AlphaGo 
>> Lee.  Then they changed to the 2nd.  Awaring t
his fact, and 
>> watching the growing curve of the 1st, I g
uess 40 layers was 
>> not enough to reach AlphaGo Master le
vel and so they 
>> doubled the layers.

>>
>> Hideki

>>
>> Xavier Combelle: <1550c907-8b96-e4ea-1f5e-2344f394b967
@gmail.com>:
>>> As I understand the paper they directly cre
ated alphago zero with a 40 
>>> block

>>> setup.
>>> They just made a reduced 20 block setup to co
mpare on kifu prediction
>>> (as far as I searched in the pa
per, it is the only
>>> place where they mention the 20 bloc
k setup)
>>> They specifically mention comparing several ver
sion of their software.
>>> with various parameter

>>> If the number of block was an important parameter I hope they would

>>> mention it.

>>> Of course they are a lot of things that they try and failed and we will

>>> not know about

>>> But I have hard time to believe that alphago zero with a 20 block is one

>>> of them

>>> About the paper, there is no mention of the number of block of master:

>>> "AlphaGo Master is the program that defeated top human players by 600

>>> in January, 2017 34 .

>>> It was previously unpublished but uses the same neural network

>>> architecture, reinforcement

>>> learning algorithm, and MCTS algorithm as described in this paper.

>>> However, it uses the

>>> same handcrafted features and rollouts as AlphaGo Lee

>>> and training was initialised by

>>> supervised learning from human data."

>>> Of what I understand same network architecture imply the same number of

>>> block

>>> Le 25/10/2017 à 17:58, Xavier Combelle a écrit :

 I understand better

 Le 25/10/2017 à 04:28, Hideki Kato a écrit :

> Are you thinking the 1st instance could reach Master level 

> if giving more training days?

> I don't think so.  The performance would be stopping 

> improving at 3 days.  If not, why they built the 2nd 

> instance?

> Best,

> Hideki

> Xavier Combelle: <05c04de1-59c4-8fcd-2dd1-094faabf3...@gmail.com>:

>> How is it a fair comparison if there is only 3 days of training for 

>>> Zero ?

>> Master had longer training no ? Moreover, Zero has bootstrap problem

>> because at the opposite of Master it don't learn from expert games

>> which means that it is likely to be weaker with little training.

>> Le 24/10/2017 à 20:20, Hideki Kato a écrit :

>>> David Silver told Master used 40 layers network in May. 

>>> According to new paper, Master used the same architecture 

>>> as Zero.  So, Master used 20 blocks ResNet.  

>>> The first instance of Zero, 20 blocks ResNet version, is 

>>> weaker than Master (after 3 days training).  So, with the 

>>> same layers (a fair comparison) Zero is weaker than 

>>> Master.

>>> Hideki

>> ___

>> 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
-- 
Hideki Kato 
___
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!?

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

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"?

-- 
GCP
___
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]

It is just wild guesses  based on reasonable arguments but without evidence.


Le 26/10/2017 à 07:51, Hideki Kato a écrit :
> You can believe
>> Of what I understand same network architecture imply the same number of
>> block
> but David Silver told AlphaGo Master used 40 layers in 
> May. 
> http://www.bestchinanews.com/Science-Technology/10371.html
> # The paper was submitted in April.
>
> Usually, network "architecture" does not imply the number of 
> layers whereas "configulation" may do.
>
> Clearly they made 40 layers version first because it's 
> called "1st instance" where the 80 layers one is called "2nd 
> instance."  The 1st was trained 3 days and overtook AlphaGo 
> Lee.  Then they changed to the 2nd.  Awaring this fact, and 
> watching the growing curve of the 1st, I guess 40 layers was 
> not enough to reach AlphaGo Master level and so they 
> doubled the layers.
>
> Hideki
>
> Xavier Combelle: <1550c907-8b96-e4ea-1f5e-2344f394b...@gmail.com>:
>> As I understand the paper they directly created alphago zero with a 40 
>> block
>> setup.
>> They just made a reduced 20 block setup to compare on kifu prediction
>> (as far as I searched in the paper, it is the only
>> place where they mention the 20 block setup)
>> They specifically mention comparing several version of their software.
>> with various parameter
>> If the number of block was an important parameter I hope they would
>> mention it.
>> Of course they are a lot of things that they try and failed and we will
>> not know about
>> But I have hard time to believe that alphago zero with a 20 block is one
>> of them
>> About the paper, there is no mention of the number of block of master:
>> "AlphaGo Master is the program that defeated top human players by 60–0
>> in January, 2017 34 .
>> It was previously unpublished but uses the same neural network
>> architecture, reinforcement
>> learning algorithm, and MCTS algorithm as described in this paper.
>> However, it uses the
>> same handcrafted features and rollouts as AlphaGo Lee
>> and training was initialised by
>> supervised learning from human data."
>> Of what I understand same network architecture imply the same number of
>> block
>> Le 25/10/2017 à 17:58, Xavier Combelle a écrit :
>>> I understand better
>>> Le 25/10/2017 à 04:28, Hideki Kato a écrit :
 Are you thinking the 1st instance could reach Master level 
 if giving more training days?
 I don't think so.  The performance would be stopping 
 improving at 3 days.  If not, why they built the 2nd 
 instance?
 Best,
 Hideki
 Xavier Combelle: <05c04de1-59c4-8fcd-2dd1-094faabf3...@gmail.com>:
> How is it a fair comparison if there is only 3 days of training for 
>> Zero ?
> Master had longer training no ? Moreover, Zero has bootstrap problem
> because at the opposite of Master it don't learn from expert games
> which means that it is likely to be weaker with little training.
> Le 24/10/2017 à 20:20, Hideki Kato a écrit :
>> David Silver told Master used 40 layers network in May. 
>> According to new paper, Master used the same architecture 
>> as Zero.  So, Master used 20 blocks ResNet.  
>> The first instance of Zero, 20 blocks ResNet version, is 
>> weaker than Master (after 3 days training).  So, with the 
>> same layers (a fair comparison) Zero is weaker than 
>> Master.
>> Hideki
> ___
> 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!?

[Hideki Kato]

You can believe
>Of what I understand same network architecture imply the same number of
>block
but David Silver told AlphaGo Master used 40 layers in 
May. 
http://www.bestchinanews.com/Science-Technology/10371.html
# The paper was submitted in April.

Usually, network "architecture" does not imply the number of 
layers whereas "configulation" may do.

Clearly they made 40 layers version first because it's 
called "1st instance" where the 80 layers one is called "2nd 
instance."  The 1st was trained 3 days and overtook AlphaGo 
Lee.  Then they changed to the 2nd.  Awaring this fact, and 
watching the growing curve of the 1st, I guess 40 layers was 
not enough to reach AlphaGo Master level and so they 
doubled the layers.

Hideki

Xavier Combelle: <1550c907-8b96-e4ea-1f5e-2344f394b...@gmail.com>:
>As I understand the paper they directly created alphago zero with a 40 
>block

>setup.

>

>They just made a reduced 20 block setup to compare on kifu prediction

>(as far as I searched in the paper, it is the only

>place where they mention the 20 block setup)

>

>They specifically mention comparing several version of their software.

>with various parameter

>

>If the number of block was an important parameter I hope they would

>mention it.

>

>Of course they are a lot of things that they try and failed and we will

>not know about

>

>But I have hard time to believe that alphago zero with a 20 block is one

>of them

>

>About the paper, there is no mention of the number of block of master:

>

>"AlphaGo Master is the program that defeated top human players by 60–0

>in January, 2017 34 .

>It was previously unpublished but uses the same neural network

>architecture, reinforcement

>learning algorithm, and MCTS algorithm as described in this paper.

>However, it uses the

>same handcrafted features and rollouts as AlphaGo Lee

>and training was initialised by

>supervised learning from human data."

>

>Of what I understand same network architecture imply the same number of

>block

>

>Le 25/10/2017 à 17:58, Xavier Combelle a écrit :

>> I understand better

>>

>>

>> Le 25/10/2017 à 04:28, Hideki Kato a écrit :

>>> Are you thinking the 1st instance could reach Master level 

>>> if giving more training days?

>>>

>>> I don't think so.  The performance would be stopping 

>>> improving at 3 days.  If not, why they built the 2nd 

>>> instance?

>>>

>>> Best,

>>> Hideki

>>>

>>> Xavier Combelle: <05c04de1-59c4-8fcd-2dd1-094faabf3...@gmail.com>:

 How is it a fair comparison if there is only 3 days of training for 
>Zero ?

 Master had longer training no ? Moreover, Zero has bootstrap problem

 because at the opposite of Master it don't learn from expert games

 which means that it is likely to be weaker with little training.

 Le 24/10/2017 à 20:20, Hideki Kato a écrit :

> David Silver told Master used 40 layers network in May. 

> According to new paper, Master used the same architecture 

> as Zero.  So, Master used 20 blocks ResNet.  

> The first instance of Zero, 20 blocks ResNet version, is 

> weaker than Master (after 3 days training).  So, with the 

> same layers (a fair comparison) Zero is weaker than 

> Master.

> Hideki

 ___

 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
-- 
Hideki Kato 
___
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]

As I understand the paper they directly created alphago zero with a 40 block
setup.

They just made a reduced 20 block setup to compare on kifu prediction
(as far as I searched in the paper, it is the only
place where they mention the 20 block setup)

They specifically mention comparing several version of their software.
with various parameter

If the number of block was an important parameter I hope they would
mention it.

Of course they are a lot of things that they try and failed and we will
not know about

But I have hard time to believe that alphago zero with a 20 block is one
of them

About the paper, there is no mention of the number of block of master:

"AlphaGo Master is the program that defeated top human players by 60–0
in January, 2017 34 .
It was previously unpublished but uses the same neural network
architecture, reinforcement
learning algorithm, and MCTS algorithm as described in this paper.
However, it uses the
same handcrafted features and rollouts as AlphaGo Lee
and training was initialised by
supervised learning from human data."

Of what I understand same network architecture imply the same number of
block

Le 25/10/2017 à 17:58, Xavier Combelle a écrit :
> I understand better
>
>
> Le 25/10/2017 à 04:28, Hideki Kato a écrit :
>> Are you thinking the 1st instance could reach Master level 
>> if giving more training days?
>>
>> I don't think so.  The performance would be stopping 
>> improving at 3 days.  If not, why they built the 2nd 
>> instance?
>>
>> Best,
>> Hideki
>>
>> Xavier Combelle: <05c04de1-59c4-8fcd-2dd1-094faabf3...@gmail.com>:
>>> How is it a fair comparison if there is only 3 days of training for Zero ?
>>> Master had longer training no ? Moreover, Zero has bootstrap problem
>>> because at the opposite of Master it don't learn from expert games
>>> which means that it is likely to be weaker with little training.
>>> Le 24/10/2017 à 20:20, Hideki Kato a écrit :
 David Silver told Master used 40 layers network in May. 
 According to new paper, Master used the same architecture 
 as Zero.  So, Master used 20 blocks ResNet.  
 The first instance of Zero, 20 blocks ResNet version, is 
 weaker than Master (after 3 days training).  So, with the 
 same layers (a fair comparison) Zero is weaker than 
 Master.
 Hideki
>>> ___
>>> 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]

I understand better


Le 25/10/2017 à 04:28, Hideki Kato a écrit :
> Are you thinking the 1st instance could reach Master level 
> if giving more training days?
>
> I don't think so.  The performance would be stopping 
> improving at 3 days.  If not, why they built the 2nd 
> instance?
>
> Best,
> Hideki
>
> Xavier Combelle: <05c04de1-59c4-8fcd-2dd1-094faabf3...@gmail.com>:
>> How is it a fair comparison if there is only 3 days of training for Zero ?
>> Master had longer training no ? Moreover, Zero has bootstrap problem
>> because at the opposite of Master it don't learn from expert games
>> which means that it is likely to be weaker with little training.
>> Le 24/10/2017 à 20:20, Hideki Kato a écrit :
>>> David Silver told Master used 40 layers network in May. 
>>> According to new paper, Master used the same architecture 
>>> as Zero.  So, Master used 20 blocks ResNet.  
>>> The first instance of Zero, 20 blocks ResNet version, is 
>>> weaker than Master (after 3 days training).  So, with the 
>>> same layers (a fair comparison) Zero is weaker than 
>>> Master.
>>> Hideki
>> ___
>> 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!?

[Hideki Kato]

Are you thinking the 1st instance could reach Master level 
if giving more training days?

I don't think so.  The performance would be stopping 
improving at 3 days.  If not, why they built the 2nd 
instance?

Best,
Hideki

Xavier Combelle: <05c04de1-59c4-8fcd-2dd1-094faabf3...@gmail.com>:
>How is it a fair comparison if there is only 3 days of training for Zero ?

>Master had longer training no ? Moreover, Zero has bootstrap problem

>because at the opposite of Master it don't learn from expert games

>which means that it is likely to be weaker with little training.

>

>

>Le 24/10/2017 à 20:20, Hideki Kato a écrit :

>> David Silver told Master used 40 layers network in May. 

>> According to new paper, Master used the same architecture 

>> as Zero.  So, Master used 20 blocks ResNet.  

>>

>> The first instance of Zero, 20 blocks ResNet version, is 

>> weaker than Master (after 3 days training).  So, with the 

>> same layers (a fair comparison) Zero is weaker than 

>> Master.

>>

>> Hideki

>

>

>___

>Computer-go mailing list

>Computer-go@computer-go.org

>http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
-- 
Hideki Kato 
___
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!?

[Shawn Ligocki]

Also (if I'm understanding the paper correctly) 20 blocks ~= 40 layers
because each "block" has two convolution layers:

Each residual block applies the following modules sequentially to its input:
> (1) A convolution of 256 filters of kernel size 3×3 with stride 1
> (2) Batch normalization
> (3) A rectifier nonlinearity
> (4) A convolution of 256 filters of kernel size 3×3 with stride 1
> (5) Batch normalization
> (6) A skip connection that adds the input to the block
> (7) A rectifier nonlinearity


On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Xavier Combelle 
wrote:

> How is it a fair comparison if there is only 3 days of training for Zero ?
> Master had longer training no ? Moreover, Zero has bootstrap problem
> because at the opposite of Master it don't learn from expert games
> which means that it is likely to be weaker with little training.
>
>
> Le 24/10/2017 à 20:20, Hideki Kato a écrit :
> > David Silver told Master used 40 layers network in May.
> > According to new paper, Master used the same architecture
> > as Zero.  So, Master used 20 blocks ResNet.
> >
> > The first instance of Zero, 20 blocks ResNet version, is
> > weaker than Master (after 3 days training).  So, with the
> > same layers (a fair comparison) Zero is weaker than
> > Master.
> >
> > Hideki
>
>
> ___
> 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]

How is it a fair comparison if there is only 3 days of training for Zero ?
Master had longer training no ? Moreover, Zero has bootstrap problem
because at the opposite of Master it don't learn from expert games
which means that it is likely to be weaker with little training.


Le 24/10/2017 à 20:20, Hideki Kato a écrit :
> David Silver told Master used 40 layers network in May. 
> According to new paper, Master used the same architecture 
> as Zero.  So, Master used 20 blocks ResNet.  
>
> The first instance of Zero, 20 blocks ResNet version, is 
> weaker than Master (after 3 days training).  So, with the 
> same layers (a fair comparison) Zero is weaker than 
> Master.
>
> Hideki


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