4 ms·
A perhaps more accurate way to say it is that AlphaGo's models its opponents as a copy of itself.
by smallnamespace 10y ago
A perhaps more accurate way to say it is that AlphaGo's models its opponents as a copy of itself.
- conanbatt 10y agoSo do human players, with rare exceptional ocassions
- iopq 10y agoPlaying trap moves is not that rare and it shows that you expect the opponent not to know a complicated variation.
- conanbatt 10y agoStrong players dont play "trap moves"
- iopq 10y agoWho said anything about strong players?
- smallnamespace 10y ago> AlphaGo
- iopq 10y agohuman players are not alphago
- smallnamespace 10y agoThe context of this thread is AlphaGo. Why would we bother discussing what bad human players do when the topic is clearly about play at the highest levels?
- iopq 10y agoThe highest level players play special variations against each other hoping that the other player doesn't know it. They CLEARLY play against what they think the other player knows, not what they know (since they have studied this variation on purpose to prepare)
- conanbatt 10y agoAs a semi-pro player I can assure you thats not how you play Go.
- iopq 10y agoThat's just appeal to authority. Lee Sedol's move against AlphaGo in game 4 could be considered a trap because it actually didn't work, but it was complicated enough to trick AlphaGo.
- Locke1689 10y agoAppeal to authority is only deductively invalid, not inductively invalid.
- iopq 10y agoBut it's not even a good authority, since strong amateurs (semi-pros) have many opponents (amateur tournaments are played in the same day or weekend and have many matches), while top players prepare specifically for one opponent in tournament finals (each match played on a different day).
- thomasahle 10y agoInteresting. From chess it seems that, for important matches, players will deeply study each other's games and try to get the other player into positions that they may be less used to playing and less comfortable with. Is this not done in go?