3 ms·
Right right, but my comparison was between giraffe and AlphaGo , not neural networks and Stockfish.
by deepnotderp 9y ago
Right right, but my comparison was between giraffe and AlphaGo , not neural networks and Stockfish.
- joshuamorton 9y agoBut it looks like AlphaGo is searching fewer positions per second than Giraffe did. AlphaZero evaluates 80K positions per second, according to this paper, and the Giraffe paper says that Giraffe averaged 258570 evaluations per second when running STS. While we can't directly compare the computer power, this implies that AZ has learned a better representation.
- allenz 9y agoIt's unclear how much of the "better representation" was due to better algorithm vs. more compute/deeper NN.
- joshuamorton 9y agoGiraffe was trained until convergence. Maybe if there was more compute power then, a different model would have been used, but that's deep into the world of silly hypotheticals.
- Retric 9y agoBy starving the competitor of computing power, if you compare A and B you can't give A 10+x the compute power and assume a fair comparison. What's interesting is a demonstration that enough compute power let's NN reach beyond human level play. Though, I don't think that was ever really in doubt.