You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gwern comments on Open Thread March 7 - March 13, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Elo 07 March 2016 03:24AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (125)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 09 March 2016 03:48:48PM 0 points [-]

Hypothesis 2: The cluster and the champion are indeed evenly matched. Expect wins and losses. May imply that the game saturates at high levels of analysis, and that there is no such thing as a 'superhuman' go player because the best humans hit the point of diminishing returns.

That wasn't true for backgammon, chess, or checkers, to name 3 solved games, so why would that be true for Go?

Comment author: gjm 09 March 2016 05:00:10PM 0 points [-]

Allegedly Cho Chikun was asked how many stones he would want from God and said "about four".

I'm not sure what the corresponding figure would be for chess. (Nor actually what its "units" would be -- chess doesn't have a handicapping system as straightforward as go does, and I wonder whether Elo-like ratings go awry if one player is playing absolutely perfectly.)

Comment author: gwern 09 March 2016 05:18:20PM *  1 point [-]

I'm not sure what the corresponding figure would be for chess.

You can actually calculate this now. Regan has noted that for computer chess, they're getting to the point where they are effectively perfect and equivalent; so whatever that gap between them and the best human player ever is can be turned into a piece advantage. (Not that I know how to do this, but I assume anyone already somewhat familiar with ELO and chess engines can take the ELO difference and figure out the corresponding material advantage. Regan thinks it's probably somewhere ~3600 ELO. Apparently chess AIs can now offer at least "pawn and move, pawn, exchange, and four-move odds." and still beat US champions & grandmasters like Hikaru Nakamura.)

But maybe that was a little hard to answer, so let me put the question the other way: has there ever been a case where a strategy game played seriously & competitively (ie. not tic-tac-toe or blackjack) by adult humans was solved to perfect or superhuman play levels by AI researchers, and the perfect or superhuman play turned out to be identical or so close to the top human's play level that human could win regularly?

Comment author: TheAltar 11 March 2016 03:04:31PM 0 points [-]

A game like that could occur between humans and A.I. with online collectible card games. (I'm specifying online because the rules are streamlined and mass competition is far more available.)

Comment author: gjm 09 March 2016 07:15:40PM 0 points [-]

I also don't know of any.