3 ms·

But this is relevant even in Go AI! As we saw with the recent AlphaGo matches, not understanding your opponent (always assuming you're playing against a clone

by Radim 11y ago

But this is relevant even in Go AI! As we saw with the recent AlphaGo matches, not understanding your opponent (always assuming you're playing against a clone of yourself, as AlphaGo does), can cause objectively suboptimal play. You just have no concept of a "trick play" -- in your world, everything you see, the opponent can see too! You could argue that with a little bit better theory of mind [1], AlphaGo could have executed a better strategy for its comeback. Instead of playing out obviously broken ladders, hoping the opponent will make a trivial mistake (ha), it was objectively strong enough to devise a cleverer plan, playing to the human's actual weaknesses. It didn't, and lost. So what you write is true, and only more true in the imperfect, fuzzy and intrinsically deceitful world of NLP. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

wodenokoto 11y ago
Given that it won 4 out of 5 games, I think your argument is pretty weak. The only trick play you can do in a game of perfect information is exactly to hope that your opponent will make a trivial mistake in response to your move.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  Not at all. If the game is complex enough you may not have the ability to determine all permutations of your opponents strategy. As someone posted in another thread, the number of legal positions in Go is so high that, while calculating all possibilities is theoretically possible, actually doing so is effectively impossible. This requires you to limit your processing to the most likely scenarios, and a "trick play" becomes one that follows a highly unlikely strategy and banks on your opponent not realizing what you are actually doing.
  - Radim 11y ago
    Exactly. And it is the "highly unlikely strategy" bit that can be tailored to your specific opponent, opening a whole new can of research worms. Even in Go. For wodenokoto: you can read more complexity and the difference between "theoretical perfection" vs "practical execution" here [1] (especially the Scott Aaronson’s essay linked there). [1] http://rare-technologies.com/go_games_life/ http://rare-technologies.com/go_games_life/

by Radim 11y ago

wodenokoto 11y ago

Given that it won 4 out of 5 games, I think your argument is pretty weak. The only trick play you can do in a game of perfect information is exactly to hope that your opponent will make a trivial mistake in response to your move.

vonmoltke 11y ago
Not at all. If the game is complex enough you may not have the ability to determine all permutations of your opponents strategy. As someone posted in another thread, the number of legal positions in Go is so high that, while calculating all possibilities is theoretically possible, actually doing so is effectively impossible. This requires you to limit your processing to the most likely scenarios, and a "trick play" becomes one that follows a highly unlikely strategy and banks on your opponent not realizing what you are actually doing.
- Radim 11y ago
  Exactly. And it is the "highly unlikely strategy" bit that can be tailored to your specific opponent, opening a whole new can of research worms. Even in Go. For wodenokoto: you can read more complexity and the difference between "theoretical perfection" vs "practical execution" here [1] (especially the Scott Aaronson’s essay linked there). [1] http://rare-technologies.com/go_games_life/ http://rare-technologies.com/go_games_life/