5 ms·

I don't play go but the AlphaZero chess games are quite beautiful. Agadmator has a description of the weird unhuman like machine continuations, disgusting engin

I don't play go but the AlphaZero chess games are quite beautiful. Agadmator has a description of the weird unhuman like machine continuations, disgusting engine lines. They're correct but incomputable by a human and just look weird. AlphaZero had some beautiful lines that looked human but slightly counterintuitive. They were the sort of moves that humans could learn from. Are the AlphaGo games similar?

mattbillenstein 5y ago
Agreed, I think ChessNetwork analyzed several of the published games as well - and some of the Leela games - they're so much more interesting than most of what I see out of Stockfish...
vmilner 5y ago
Yes, very much so - for example it used to be almost axiomatic (told in your second or third go lesson) that placing a white stone at the 3-3 point when black had played at 4-4 was very bad, but this video shows that AlphaGo has radically changed this view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2khNnE5Q3GM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2khNnE5Q3GM
AboveTheGame 5y ago
///UNPOPULAR OPINION WARNING/// No, they’re for inept idiots who are obsessed with mathematically solved abstractions of reality. My god, to someone who sees chaos maps in reality the patterns these pathetic programming abstractions offer is a limitation of /our current society/ — we are slaves to wealth and process over progress and intuition. Nothing more need be said, I am always throwing Pearls before swine.
AboveTheGame 5y ago
You are also NOT “that guy” Fuck this gay simulation lmao Hahahahaha get pressed on y’all soft ass morons
roenxi 5y ago
Go is a bit different from Chess, there are so many options that you can't really have a "disgusting engine line", because either sequences are forced and humans can find them too eventually or the number of lines the move effects is so vast that we would never realise how clever it is. Computer Go is obviously making calculations that a human couldn't, but as an observer it just looks like not making any mistakes. There is the occasional spectacular attack or defence, but humans do that too from time to time - human players often see or try moves that others wouldn't. In complicated situations computers will do a better job at assessing what the impacts are. In Go, to win a player needs to consistently make moves that are on average 0.0025 points better than their opponent for 300 moves. It is hard to detect the genius if a neural net decides it is going to win the game that way. The games are interesting to study, they are all masterworks. But the strength of a Go player is in the consistency rather than individual flashes of insight.
- zeven7 5y ago
  I disagree with this comment quite strongly. Go has a lot of high level theory and pattern recognition that is very different from just reading ahead, and AlphaGo has opened up a lot of new theory that we didn't have before, not unlike what was done by Go Seigen and others in the Shin Fuseki era. I feel like the emphasis of your comment misses how the game has changed for humans since AlphaGo.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > not unlike what was done by Go Seigen and others in the Shin Fuseki era That is the crux of it though; we're seeing the same effect as every time a new strong player arises. That doesn't scream "wow, this is like when chess engines discovered impossible new lines!". It was probably a matter of time until some human pro started winning with the 3-3 invasion for example. It isn't like 3-3 invasions are a radical new thing, professional play just underweighted them. I've played amateurs who loved 3-3 invasions. There is no question that the neural nets are substantially stronger than humans and that they're causing a monumental rethink of all aspects of the game. They're a big deal. But the difference is that they are bringing a very large number of innovations all at once, combined with far more accurate reading, rather than that any individual innovation is special. It is really difficult for one sequence in Go to be special, because it is so common for a special sequence to happen.
PandaPanda150 5y ago
I can try to explain for people not playing Go the most important thing that changed: The AI popularized a move that has been known since ages, but wasn't used by strong humans much because it was considered a mistake (the early 33 invasion). The thing with this move is: It gives you a small advantage very early in the game, but gives your opponent a superior fighting position in exchange. This fighting position was considered better. Not early on, but in later stages of the game it oughtweights the small advantage taken early. Then came AI and it found out, given enough fighting power, it can mostly cancel that later game advantage. So the new move is actually a good one, but only if you have very strong fighting skills. AI has this, some very strong players as well. But for the rest of us, the pre AI strategy is often better because we can't handle the complexity. It is common to see casual players copying the AI style and digging their own grave while doing so.
- PandaPanda150 5y ago
  I'd like to add something: It is not necessary an error for humans to play this new AI opening strategy. If human players do the new AI move, an attack to cancel out the better fighting position is unavoidable. We've learned from AI how to attack and defend in this situation, so even human players are prepared and know what to do. So it is fair game for the two human brains again. The player who gets out of this fight with the worse position is on a rather high disadvantage for the rest of the game. So you can think of this new strategy as doubling the stake of the game very early on. For players who are really good at fighting and handle the complexity that will arise from this fight this strategy is a good choice.
- inclemnet 5y ago
  > But for the rest of us, the pre AI strategy is often better because we can't handle the complexity. > It is common to see casual players copying the AI style and digging their own grave while doing so. I think this point is greatly overstated. Amateur go style has always been modelled on professional play even though amateurs have no idea of the subtleties of it, and this was rarely bemoaned much in the past. It's easy to find examples of amateur players getting it wrong and turning a slightly-good position into a bad one, but this is true of just about anything and I think there's a lot of confirmation bias in associating it with AI moves in particular - it doesn't in itself mean they've disadvantaged themselves by trying. It also greatly overstates how bad it is to play the 3-3 early and not fight aggressively. Even if you don't worry about the fighting variations we're talking about a small number of points, much less than amateur games tend to swing via mistakes every few moves. This is also true about those professional-like lines that have always been mimicked but played imperfectly, and is probably a big reason the lack of amateur understanding of them never mattered too much. Plus let's not forget that both amateur players in the game are relatively bad at fighting, it's just about as hard for the defensive player to really get it right as for the offensive player to utilise their theoretical advantage. Overall I think the modern focus on AI-like play is much more of a fashion in line with other general shifts following what's professionally popular than a mistake. Players do pay attention to how well they do and associate it with specific moves and lines they recognise they don't understand well, but AI-inspired lines don't seem to have attracted any widespread cautiousness. > Then came AI and it found out, given enough fighting power, it can mostly cancel that later game advantage. Also worth noting that the AIs play the 3-3 invasion in a specific different way to what was the accepted human pattern, and this alone does make a big but understandable difference to how the shape commonly continues. It isn't that they only turned around the evaluation of the standard position through superhuman reading, they revealed a line that humans had undervalued but could then learn from.
throwaway81523 5y ago
I'm not a Go player but watched some of the famous Lee Sedol match on youtube while it was happening. One channel had a Korean professional 9-dan (= super grandmaster) commentating. At one point in game 1, AlphaGo made a move that shocked the professional. He spent a while analyzing it, asking whether it could work, etc. The next few moves were routine, so he commented on them briefly and then went back to talking about the surprising move. More moves came and he commented on those. Then perhaps 20 minutes later, during the wait for another move, he went back to the surprising move and said "if that move works, AlphaGo is going to win all 5 games". It was so far-reaching and subtle that if it was not a mistake, it could only be made by a player of superhuman strength. As we know, Lee Sedol managed to win game 4 by a lucky break, but lost the rest, so the GM's comments were incredibly perceptive. I took a few notes while watching so I may be able to dig them up and check the details, but the surprising play became quite well-known and involved something called a "dog's head" formation, which might be enough for Go aficionados to identify it.
- throwaway2214 5y ago
  > Lee Sedol managed to win game 4 by a lucky break Move 78 was not a lucky break. At least in my mind. There are not many movies I cried to, in this movie I cried twice, once when Lee Sedol was apologizing for the loss, and once when he made move 78 and Alpha Go's probability to win dropped with 10%. Now for me move-78 means hope.
  - gverrilla 5y ago
    this movie got me very emotional aswell, which is not common particularly for docs
  - PartiallyTyped 5y ago
    I don't mean to burst your bubble, but since then, we have had significantly better algorithms than AlphaGO, and much more compute. Unless humanity moves to a point where the average skill is that of Lee, and the average intelligence is akin to JvN's I don't see hope for humanity.
jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
I'm just a middling go player but I'd say yes, the two are quite comparable and rooted, at least partially, in a similar aspect: Alpha doesn't care about margin of victory, only probability of victory. This leads it to play a much more influence/position vs territory oriented style at times in go, occasionally shockingly so.

mattbillenstein 5y ago

Agreed, I think ChessNetwork analyzed several of the published games as well - and some of the Leela games - they're so much more interesting than most of what I see out of Stockfish...

vmilner 5y ago

Yes, very much so - for example it used to be almost axiomatic (told in your second or third go lesson) that placing a white stone at the 3-3 point when black had played at 4-4 was very bad, but this video shows that AlphaGo has radically changed this view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2khNnE5Q3GM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2khNnE5Q3GM

AboveTheGame 5y ago

///UNPOPULAR OPINION WARNING/// No, they’re for inept idiots who are obsessed with mathematically solved abstractions of reality. My god, to someone who sees chaos maps in reality the patterns these pathetic programming abstractions offer is a limitation of /our current society/ — we are slaves to wealth and process over progress and intuition. Nothing more need be said, I am always throwing Pearls before swine.

AboveTheGame 5y ago

You are also NOT “that guy” Fuck this gay simulation lmao Hahahahaha get pressed on y’all soft ass morons

roenxi 5y ago

Go is a bit different from Chess, there are so many options that you can't really have a "disgusting engine line", because either sequences are forced and humans can find them too eventually or the number of lines the move effects is so vast that we would never realise how clever it is. Computer Go is obviously making calculations that a human couldn't, but as an observer it just looks like not making any mistakes. There is the occasional spectacular attack or defence, but humans do that too from time to time - human players often see or try moves that others wouldn't. In complicated situations computers will do a better job at assessing what the impacts are. In Go, to win a player needs to consistently make moves that are on average 0.0025 points better than their opponent for 300 moves. It is hard to detect the genius if a neural net decides it is going to win the game that way. The games are interesting to study, they are all masterworks. But the strength of a Go player is in the consistency rather than individual flashes of insight.

zeven7 5y ago
I disagree with this comment quite strongly. Go has a lot of high level theory and pattern recognition that is very different from just reading ahead, and AlphaGo has opened up a lot of new theory that we didn't have before, not unlike what was done by Go Seigen and others in the Shin Fuseki era. I feel like the emphasis of your comment misses how the game has changed for humans since AlphaGo.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > not unlike what was done by Go Seigen and others in the Shin Fuseki era That is the crux of it though; we're seeing the same effect as every time a new strong player arises. That doesn't scream "wow, this is like when chess engines discovered impossible new lines!". It was probably a matter of time until some human pro started winning with the 3-3 invasion for example. It isn't like 3-3 invasions are a radical new thing, professional play just underweighted them. I've played amateurs who loved 3-3 invasions. There is no question that the neural nets are substantially stronger than humans and that they're causing a monumental rethink of all aspects of the game. They're a big deal. But the difference is that they are bringing a very large number of innovations all at once, combined with far more accurate reading, rather than that any individual innovation is special. It is really difficult for one sequence in Go to be special, because it is so common for a special sequence to happen.

PandaPanda150 5y ago

I can try to explain for people not playing Go the most important thing that changed: The AI popularized a move that has been known since ages, but wasn't used by strong humans much because it was considered a mistake (the early 33 invasion). The thing with this move is: It gives you a small advantage very early in the game, but gives your opponent a superior fighting position in exchange. This fighting position was considered better. Not early on, but in later stages of the game it oughtweights the small advantage taken early. Then came AI and it found out, given enough fighting power, it can mostly cancel that later game advantage. So the new move is actually a good one, but only if you have very strong fighting skills. AI has this, some very strong players as well. But for the rest of us, the pre AI strategy is often better because we can't handle the complexity. It is common to see casual players copying the AI style and digging their own grave while doing so.

PandaPanda150 5y ago
I'd like to add something: It is not necessary an error for humans to play this new AI opening strategy. If human players do the new AI move, an attack to cancel out the better fighting position is unavoidable. We've learned from AI how to attack and defend in this situation, so even human players are prepared and know what to do. So it is fair game for the two human brains again. The player who gets out of this fight with the worse position is on a rather high disadvantage for the rest of the game. So you can think of this new strategy as doubling the stake of the game very early on. For players who are really good at fighting and handle the complexity that will arise from this fight this strategy is a good choice.
inclemnet 5y ago
> But for the rest of us, the pre AI strategy is often better because we can't handle the complexity. > It is common to see casual players copying the AI style and digging their own grave while doing so. I think this point is greatly overstated. Amateur go style has always been modelled on professional play even though amateurs have no idea of the subtleties of it, and this was rarely bemoaned much in the past. It's easy to find examples of amateur players getting it wrong and turning a slightly-good position into a bad one, but this is true of just about anything and I think there's a lot of confirmation bias in associating it with AI moves in particular - it doesn't in itself mean they've disadvantaged themselves by trying. It also greatly overstates how bad it is to play the 3-3 early and not fight aggressively. Even if you don't worry about the fighting variations we're talking about a small number of points, much less than amateur games tend to swing via mistakes every few moves. This is also true about those professional-like lines that have always been mimicked but played imperfectly, and is probably a big reason the lack of amateur understanding of them never mattered too much. Plus let's not forget that both amateur players in the game are relatively bad at fighting, it's just about as hard for the defensive player to really get it right as for the offensive player to utilise their theoretical advantage. Overall I think the modern focus on AI-like play is much more of a fashion in line with other general shifts following what's professionally popular than a mistake. Players do pay attention to how well they do and associate it with specific moves and lines they recognise they don't understand well, but AI-inspired lines don't seem to have attracted any widespread cautiousness. > Then came AI and it found out, given enough fighting power, it can mostly cancel that later game advantage. Also worth noting that the AIs play the 3-3 invasion in a specific different way to what was the accepted human pattern, and this alone does make a big but understandable difference to how the shape commonly continues. It isn't that they only turned around the evaluation of the standard position through superhuman reading, they revealed a line that humans had undervalued but could then learn from.

throwaway81523 5y ago

I'm not a Go player but watched some of the famous Lee Sedol match on youtube while it was happening. One channel had a Korean professional 9-dan (= super grandmaster) commentating. At one point in game 1, AlphaGo made a move that shocked the professional. He spent a while analyzing it, asking whether it could work, etc. The next few moves were routine, so he commented on them briefly and then went back to talking about the surprising move. More moves came and he commented on those. Then perhaps 20 minutes later, during the wait for another move, he went back to the surprising move and said "if that move works, AlphaGo is going to win all 5 games". It was so far-reaching and subtle that if it was not a mistake, it could only be made by a player of superhuman strength. As we know, Lee Sedol managed to win game 4 by a lucky break, but lost the rest, so the GM's comments were incredibly perceptive. I took a few notes while watching so I may be able to dig them up and check the details, but the surprising play became quite well-known and involved something called a "dog's head" formation, which might be enough for Go aficionados to identify it.

throwaway2214 5y ago
> Lee Sedol managed to win game 4 by a lucky break Move 78 was not a lucky break. At least in my mind. There are not many movies I cried to, in this movie I cried twice, once when Lee Sedol was apologizing for the loss, and once when he made move 78 and Alpha Go's probability to win dropped with 10%. Now for me move-78 means hope.
- gverrilla 5y ago
  this movie got me very emotional aswell, which is not common particularly for docs
- PartiallyTyped 5y ago
  I don't mean to burst your bubble, but since then, we have had significantly better algorithms than AlphaGO, and much more compute. Unless humanity moves to a point where the average skill is that of Lee, and the average intelligence is akin to JvN's I don't see hope for humanity.

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago

I'm just a middling go player but I'd say yes, the two are quite comparable and rooted, at least partially, in a similar aspect: Alpha doesn't care about margin of victory, only probability of victory. This leads it to play a much more influence/position vs territory oriented style at times in go, occasionally shockingly so.