11 ms·

This game was largely played extremely well by both sides. There were a a few peculiar-seeming moves made by AlphaGo that the commentator found very atypical. T

This game was largely played extremely well by both sides. There were a a few peculiar-seeming moves made by AlphaGo that the commentator found very atypical. These moves ended up playing a very important role in the end game. I should also say that it's somewhat clear that Sedol made one suboptimal move, and AlphaGo capitalized on it. Interestingly, the English commentator made the same mistake as he was predicting lines of play. This involved play in the center of the board, in a very complicated position. Prior to this set of moves, the game was almost a tie. Afterwards, it was very heavily in AlphaGo's favor.

dwaltrip 11y ago
Center evaluation is hard for humans, but not for bots, it seems.
- thomasahle 11y ago
  It was until a few days ago :-)
- visarga 11y ago
  Endgame is also a strong point of AlphaGo.
ljk 11y ago
> These moves ended up playing a very important role in the end game. Does this mean AlphaGo was playing at a higher level or is it just a coincident?
- thomasahle 11y ago
  The 9p commentator at the AGA channel said you should judge genius versus madness on whether alphago won. And it did.
  - zamalek 11y ago
    The "mad" moves could also be throwing the human off. I wonder how Sedol would fare given a year or so of practice against AlphaGo.
    - piyush_soni 11y ago
      Just that in that time AlphaGo will have played millions of more matches against itself, learning at a much faster rate than him. Not sure, he might still beat the machine though. That needs to be seen.
      - scarmig 11y ago
        AlphaGo has already played millions of matches against itself. The obvious low hanging fruit there has already been harvested.
- kqr 11y ago
  Impossible for anyone of us to know. The Google people might know, but it's in there interest to not present AlphaGo as clearly superior because an even game attracts more views.
Florin_Andrei 11y ago
> There were a a few peculiar-seeming moves made by AlphaGo that the commentator found very atypical. Myungwan Kim 9-dan professional (comments on match #1): "She knows everything [...] Unthinkable move for human [...] AlphaGo plays like the god of go" https://youtu.be/6ZugVil2v4w?t=5054 https://youtu.be/6ZugVil2v4w?t=5054
- imron 11y ago
  I wonder how long before humans start learning from AlphaGo! I want to see AlphaGo vs AlphaGo :-)
  - pavelrub 11y ago
    AlphaGo has already played millions of games against AlphaGo during the reinforcement learning stage.
    - ponyous 11y ago
      Is it possible to view games somewhere?
      - dcre 11y ago
        No, but they might release more info after these games.
  - sidko 11y ago
    Seeing the way chess computers have evolved, this won't be far into the future. There are several tournaments just for chess computers, and it is very hard even for grandmasters to follow every more. Somehow, after a 20-move sequence that appears to accomplish nothing, one side is slightly up, and the rest of the game is decided.
    - Jach 11y ago
      There's been a big annual Go computer cup for a while now, it's been fun to read about: http://jsb.cs.uec.ac.jp/~igo/eng/index.html http://jsb.cs.uec.ac.jp/~igo/eng/index.html Of interest this year is Facebook's new bot is competing, which employs the same strategy as AlphaGo (Deep nets with MCTS), but from what I remember they've said (they've been a lot more open about its performance, you could even play a version on KGS, though I did really like AlphaGo's paper) it's quite a bit weaker. However I suspect it's also running on a lot less computer power, and that it will still be a while before you can get AlphaGo or better performance from a mere modest gaming rig let alone a standard laptop. One benefit of programs like AlphaGo eventually becoming available to individuals is that we'll see a rise in some incredibly strong young players that leave their ancestors in the dust, as I think has happened with Chess via Magnus. For the amount of training that can only be done by playing more and more games, being able to do that against a computer will be a lot more efficient.
ganwar 11y ago
> I should also say that it's somewhat clear that Sedol made one suboptimal move, and AlphaGo capitalized on it. Can you please indicate this time in the video of the game? Thanks a lot.
- losvedir 11y ago
  I watched the live stream commentated by Myungwan Kim so I know what the parent is referring to (later in the game, Myungwan Kim referred back to that possibly being a mistake), although not being a Go player myself most of it was over my head. It was fairly early in the game and about 4-5 lines down from the top and towards the center, center-left. Apparently, Lee Sedol played a little conservatively and "didn't take a ko" (?) when he could have. Hope that helps you figure out what they're referring to, or maybe someone else can chime in, but that's what I remember.
  - ganwar 11y ago
    Thanks. That did the job.

dwaltrip 11y ago

Center evaluation is hard for humans, but not for bots, it seems.

thomasahle 11y ago
It was until a few days ago :-)
visarga 11y ago
Endgame is also a strong point of AlphaGo.

ljk 11y ago

> These moves ended up playing a very important role in the end game. Does this mean AlphaGo was playing at a higher level or is it just a coincident?

thomasahle 11y ago
The 9p commentator at the AGA channel said you should judge genius versus madness on whether alphago won. And it did.
- zamalek 11y ago
  The "mad" moves could also be throwing the human off. I wonder how Sedol would fare given a year or so of practice against AlphaGo.
  - piyush_soni 11y ago
    Just that in that time AlphaGo will have played millions of more matches against itself, learning at a much faster rate than him. Not sure, he might still beat the machine though. That needs to be seen.
    - scarmig 11y ago
      AlphaGo has already played millions of matches against itself. The obvious low hanging fruit there has already been harvested.
kqr 11y ago
Impossible for anyone of us to know. The Google people might know, but it's in there interest to not present AlphaGo as clearly superior because an even game attracts more views.

Florin_Andrei 11y ago

> There were a a few peculiar-seeming moves made by AlphaGo that the commentator found very atypical. Myungwan Kim 9-dan professional (comments on match #1): "She knows everything [...] Unthinkable move for human [...] AlphaGo plays like the god of go" https://youtu.be/6ZugVil2v4w?t=5054 https://youtu.be/6ZugVil2v4w?t=5054

imron 11y ago
I wonder how long before humans start learning from AlphaGo! I want to see AlphaGo vs AlphaGo :-)
- pavelrub 11y ago
  AlphaGo has already played millions of games against AlphaGo during the reinforcement learning stage.
  - ponyous 11y ago
    Is it possible to view games somewhere?
    - dcre 11y ago
      No, but they might release more info after these games.
- sidko 11y ago
  Seeing the way chess computers have evolved, this won't be far into the future. There are several tournaments just for chess computers, and it is very hard even for grandmasters to follow every more. Somehow, after a 20-move sequence that appears to accomplish nothing, one side is slightly up, and the rest of the game is decided.
  - Jach 11y ago
    There's been a big annual Go computer cup for a while now, it's been fun to read about: http://jsb.cs.uec.ac.jp/~igo/eng/index.html http://jsb.cs.uec.ac.jp/~igo/eng/index.html Of interest this year is Facebook's new bot is competing, which employs the same strategy as AlphaGo (Deep nets with MCTS), but from what I remember they've said (they've been a lot more open about its performance, you could even play a version on KGS, though I did really like AlphaGo's paper) it's quite a bit weaker. However I suspect it's also running on a lot less computer power, and that it will still be a while before you can get AlphaGo or better performance from a mere modest gaming rig let alone a standard laptop. One benefit of programs like AlphaGo eventually becoming available to individuals is that we'll see a rise in some incredibly strong young players that leave their ancestors in the dust, as I think has happened with Chess via Magnus. For the amount of training that can only be done by playing more and more games, being able to do that against a computer will be a lot more efficient.

ganwar 11y ago

> I should also say that it's somewhat clear that Sedol made one suboptimal move, and AlphaGo capitalized on it. Can you please indicate this time in the video of the game? Thanks a lot.

losvedir 11y ago
I watched the live stream commentated by Myungwan Kim so I know what the parent is referring to (later in the game, Myungwan Kim referred back to that possibly being a mistake), although not being a Go player myself most of it was over my head. It was fairly early in the game and about 4-5 lines down from the top and towards the center, center-left. Apparently, Lee Sedol played a little conservatively and "didn't take a ko" (?) when he could have. Hope that helps you figure out what they're referring to, or maybe someone else can chime in, but that's what I remember.
- ganwar 11y ago
  Thanks. That did the job.