= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (183)
Several things I thought were interesting:
The commentator (on the Deepmind channel) calling out several of AlphaGo's moves as conservative. Essentially, it would play an additional stone to settle or augment some group that he wouldn't necessarily have played around. What I'm curious about is how much this reflects an attempt by AlphaGo to conserve computational resources. "I think move A is a 12 point swing, and move B is a 10 point swing, but move B narrows the search tree for future moves in a way that I think will net me at least 2 more points." (It wouldn't be verbalized like that, since it's not thinking verbally, but you can get this effect naturally from the tree search and position evaluator.)
Both players took a long time to play "obvious" moves. (Typically, by this I mean something like a response to a forced move.) 이 sometimes didn't--there were a handful of moves he played immediately after AlphaGo's move--but I was still surprised by the amount of thought that went into some of the moves. This may be typical for tournament play--I haven't watched any live before this.
AlphaGo's willingness to play aggressively and get involved in big fights with 이, and then not lose. I'm not sure that all the fights developed to AlphaGo's advantage, but evidently enough of them did by enough.
I somewhat regret 이 not playing the game out to the end; it would have been nice to know the actual score. (I'm sure estimates will be available soon, if not already.)
No. 2 points is a lot at that level. If the commentator would think a move cost 2 points he wouldn't call it conversative but he would call it an error.
Not playing out every move is more about keeping aji open and not wasting possible ko threads. Unfortunately I don't know how to translate aji into English.
I think B actually results in more points overall, which is why it would play it; my curiosity is what fraction is due to direct effects vs. indirect effects.
For example, one could imagine the board position evaluation function being different for different timing schemes. If you're playing a blitz game where both players have 10 seconds to play each turn, some positions might move from mildly favoring black to strongly favoring black because white needs to do a bunch of thinking to navigate the game tree successfully.
It's no blitz game and there plenty of time to think through moves.
Just for the record at my prime I used to play Go at around 2 kyu.
I understand aji as potential for future moves that is currently not too usable but may be after the board configuration has evolved.
It goes in that direction but moves don't have to be used directly to constrain movements elsewhere on the board.
When playing around with Fold.it there was a similar scenario. It's often possible to run a script to get a higher local maxima. However that made the fold more "rigid". The experienced folders did only run the script to search the local maximas at the end when they manually did everything that could be done. With my usage of Go vocabulary running the script to optimize locally beforehand would also be a case of aji-keshi.
Aji is for me a phenomological primitive that I learned while playing Go and that I can use outside of Go but which doesn't have an existing English or German word.
The way I think about aji is something fragile on a ledge--sure, it's safe now, but as things shift around, it may suddenly become unsafe.