7 ms·

Why hasn't there been another AlphaGo match?

by asdfologist 10y ago

samblr 10y ago
Now, its playing virtually with top players in a GO game website.
- pdpi 10y ago
  Those games are actually quite interesting because, though not blitz speed, are still on much tighter timers than the big Lee Sedol match, and that exercises different strengths for both the human and the AI.
henrikf 10y ago
Deepmind released three AlphaGo vs. AlphaGo matches last year and around the new year AlphaGo played 60 games against top professionals online winning all of them. There have been rumours about AlphaGo vs. Ke Jie (No. 1 Go player), but nothing has been confirmed yet.
- mtgx 10y ago
  Ken Jie has already lost three times in a row to AlphaGo, while it was playing online under the name "Master". > But now even Ke, the reigning top-ranked Go player, has acknowledged that human beings are no match for robots in the complex board game, after he lost three games to an AI that mysteriously popped up online in recent days. The AI turned out to be AlphaGo in disguise. https://qz.com/877721/the-ai-master-bested-the-worlds-top-go-players-and-then-revealed-itself-as-googles-alphago-in-disguise/ https://qz.com/877721/the-ai-master-bested-the-worlds-top-go...
  - thefalcon 10y ago
    To be fair, those time limited online games are acknowledged to be biased in favor of AI over human players, so an actual tournament style match like Lee Sedol played would be needed for a more fair comparison. That said, I expect AlphaGo to continue* undefeated (and hope to be proven wrong). *From this point forward.
    - 613style 10y ago
      At this point there's a basically unanimous opinion among Go professionals that humans don't stand a chance unless the time controls were skewed in a very unfair way and/or humans cooperated against the computer. Master's wins in the 60-0 games were extremely convincing (and that was using only 1 GPU).
      - pmontra 10y ago
        Lee Sedol said something like a human player would need three days of thinking time vs the CPU. However it's no different than human vs car. Any car can do 300 km in 3 hours. A pro probably can do 300 km in 3 days. The different time allowance makes up for quantitative differences in hardware. Sometimes there are also qualitative differences, no human can fly or dive very deep or go to the moon without the assistance of a machine. I don't know if there are qualitative differences in go and chess, like no human can win 60-0 against fellow pros or get to 3400 ELO despite a very large time allowance.
    - khc 10y ago
      Total noob here, how are they biased in favor of AI?
      - gamegoblin 10y ago
        I don't know if this is exactly the case for Go, but in chess, short/fast games are heavily biased towards the player who doesn't make short term tactical blunders. In a fast game, a human doesn't have time to figure out an extremely complicated sequence of sacrifices and combinations, but a computer can look at every possible continuation of 10+ moves in the future in under a second. So not only does it not make stupid short-term blunders, but it will immediately spot any mistake the human made that is exploitable in the short term. Up until the late 90s, and to a certain extent the early 00s, humans could use "anti-computer" strategies to win in long/slow games. A typical anti-computer strategy would be to play very conservatively and set up the board in a position that an experienced player knows has a favorable endgame, but that endgame is too deep for the computer to see, so the computer doesn't know it's being set up. These days computers can just look 20+ moves deep every turn and have better heuristics to mostly prevent this from happening.
- cnxhk 10y ago
  The match with Ke Jie is already confirmed by Chinese official.
  - henrikf 10y ago
    That's the rumours I was referencing. Deepmind hasn't confirmed anything yet.

Why hasn't there been another AlphaGo match?

samblr 10y ago

Now, its playing virtually with top players in a GO game website.

pdpi 10y ago
Those games are actually quite interesting because, though not blitz speed, are still on much tighter timers than the big Lee Sedol match, and that exercises different strengths for both the human and the AI.

henrikf 10y ago

Deepmind released three AlphaGo vs. AlphaGo matches last year and around the new year AlphaGo played 60 games against top professionals online winning all of them. There have been rumours about AlphaGo vs. Ke Jie (No. 1 Go player), but nothing has been confirmed yet.

mtgx 10y ago
Ken Jie has already lost three times in a row to AlphaGo, while it was playing online under the name "Master". > But now even Ke, the reigning top-ranked Go player, has acknowledged that human beings are no match for robots in the complex board game, after he lost three games to an AI that mysteriously popped up online in recent days. The AI turned out to be AlphaGo in disguise. https://qz.com/877721/the-ai-master-bested-the-worlds-top-go-players-and-then-revealed-itself-as-googles-alphago-in-disguise/ https://qz.com/877721/the-ai-master-bested-the-worlds-top-go...
- thefalcon 10y ago
  To be fair, those time limited online games are acknowledged to be biased in favor of AI over human players, so an actual tournament style match like Lee Sedol played would be needed for a more fair comparison. That said, I expect AlphaGo to continue* undefeated (and hope to be proven wrong). *From this point forward.
  - 613style 10y ago
    At this point there's a basically unanimous opinion among Go professionals that humans don't stand a chance unless the time controls were skewed in a very unfair way and/or humans cooperated against the computer. Master's wins in the 60-0 games were extremely convincing (and that was using only 1 GPU).
    - pmontra 10y ago
      Lee Sedol said something like a human player would need three days of thinking time vs the CPU. However it's no different than human vs car. Any car can do 300 km in 3 hours. A pro probably can do 300 km in 3 days. The different time allowance makes up for quantitative differences in hardware. Sometimes there are also qualitative differences, no human can fly or dive very deep or go to the moon without the assistance of a machine. I don't know if there are qualitative differences in go and chess, like no human can win 60-0 against fellow pros or get to 3400 ELO despite a very large time allowance.
  - khc 10y ago
    Total noob here, how are they biased in favor of AI?
    - gamegoblin 10y ago
      I don't know if this is exactly the case for Go, but in chess, short/fast games are heavily biased towards the player who doesn't make short term tactical blunders. In a fast game, a human doesn't have time to figure out an extremely complicated sequence of sacrifices and combinations, but a computer can look at every possible continuation of 10+ moves in the future in under a second. So not only does it not make stupid short-term blunders, but it will immediately spot any mistake the human made that is exploitable in the short term. Up until the late 90s, and to a certain extent the early 00s, humans could use "anti-computer" strategies to win in long/slow games. A typical anti-computer strategy would be to play very conservatively and set up the board in a position that an experienced player knows has a favorable endgame, but that endgame is too deep for the computer to see, so the computer doesn't know it's being set up. These days computers can just look 20+ moves deep every turn and have better heuristics to mostly prevent this from happening.
cnxhk 10y ago
The match with Ke Jie is already confirmed by Chinese official.
- henrikf 10y ago
  That's the rumours I was referencing. Deepmind hasn't confirmed anything yet.