4 ms·

I'm totally uninformed about Go, but by now it seems that unless you're clearly in the lead by the end of the midgame, AlphaGo is going to win, simply because a

I'm totally uninformed about Go, but by now it seems that unless you're clearly in the lead by the end of the midgame, AlphaGo is going to win, simply because at that point its Monte Carlo Tree Search is going to our-compute you in examining all the tactical variations in the endgame. Lee Sedol really seemed to be under a lot of time pressure at the end. EDIT: clarified to what I originally meant: "end of midgame"

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
PakG1 11y ago
It really depends on how good AlphaGo is at avoiding mistakes. If you get critical points on the board, it's possible to create a resilient structure that is defensible against comebacks. But when I play, there are times when I can make an overwhelming comeback because my opponent missed one critical move. I've likewise had it done to me. This is of course probably less common at higher and higher levels of play. I'm reminded of the time when Deep Blue made a buggy move that totally threw Kasparov off because it was so counterintuitive. But it turned out to be a real mistake. If Kasparov had kept his composure, who knows what could have happened? http://www.wired.com/2012/09/deep-blue-computer-bug/ http://www.wired.com/2012/09/deep-blue-computer-bug/ Of course, as been stated here, AlphaGo doesn't have the issue of having to keep composure, while Lee does have that issue and pressure. But who's to say that AlphaGo won't make a similar significant mistake, and that Lee won't be able to capitalize on it to make a comeback in that particular game? edit: admittedly, as pshc as noted, the search space probably grows smaller as the game continues. edit 2: suddenly, his comment disappeared for some reason?
kqr 11y ago
In the mid-game – and hell, even in the early end-game – the search space is still too big to practically exhaust the useful branches with MCTS. Keep in mind "mid-game" in Go means there's still over 100 moves left in the game – well longer than a full chess game. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I don't agree with your motivation.
nandemo 11y ago
I don't think so. Pros are already pretty good at the endgame. Yeah, they make blunders now and then, so it's possible that AlphaGo would gain a few points in the endgame in some games, but not enough to overcome a significant lead and not every time. In any case, I personally find it more interesting to see what we can learn from AlphaGo about the opening and the midgame.
- brianchu 11y ago
  Isn't that what I'm saying though? If you're tied/close going into the endgame, AlphaGo will probably win.
  - nandemo 11y ago
    My writing was sloppy, let me rephrase it: in a pro match, whatever is the estimated score when the game goes into the endgame, that will likely be the final score. Where I wrote that a pro will blunder "now and then" I should have written "rarely" -- I don't have data to back this up but I'd guess once in every n games for some n > 30.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

PakG1 11y ago

It really depends on how good AlphaGo is at avoiding mistakes. If you get critical points on the board, it's possible to create a resilient structure that is defensible against comebacks. But when I play, there are times when I can make an overwhelming comeback because my opponent missed one critical move. I've likewise had it done to me. This is of course probably less common at higher and higher levels of play. I'm reminded of the time when Deep Blue made a buggy move that totally threw Kasparov off because it was so counterintuitive. But it turned out to be a real mistake. If Kasparov had kept his composure, who knows what could have happened? http://www.wired.com/2012/09/deep-blue-computer-bug/ http://www.wired.com/2012/09/deep-blue-computer-bug/ Of course, as been stated here, AlphaGo doesn't have the issue of having to keep composure, while Lee does have that issue and pressure. But who's to say that AlphaGo won't make a similar significant mistake, and that Lee won't be able to capitalize on it to make a comeback in that particular game? edit: admittedly, as pshc as noted, the search space probably grows smaller as the game continues. edit 2: suddenly, his comment disappeared for some reason?

kqr 11y ago

In the mid-game – and hell, even in the early end-game – the search space is still too big to practically exhaust the useful branches with MCTS. Keep in mind "mid-game" in Go means there's still over 100 moves left in the game – well longer than a full chess game. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I don't agree with your motivation.

nandemo 11y ago

I don't think so. Pros are already pretty good at the endgame. Yeah, they make blunders now and then, so it's possible that AlphaGo would gain a few points in the endgame in some games, but not enough to overcome a significant lead and not every time. In any case, I personally find it more interesting to see what we can learn from AlphaGo about the opening and the midgame.

brianchu 11y ago
Isn't that what I'm saying though? If you're tied/close going into the endgame, AlphaGo will probably win.
- nandemo 11y ago
  My writing was sloppy, let me rephrase it: in a pro match, whatever is the estimated score when the game goes into the endgame, that will likely be the final score. Where I wrote that a pro will blunder "now and then" I should have written "rarely" -- I don't have data to back this up but I'd guess once in every n games for some n > 30.