Re:Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI...
by dragontamer on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @01:34PM
(#21650576)
> Alpha Zero has proved this by smashing Stockfish every time it plays it.
Google played Alpha Zero vs Stockfish under their own conditions. I think this was a mistake to stay in the labs by themselves.
I think Google would have benefited from participating in WCCC 2019 for example, where Johnny (1200x core cluster) won the day.
----------
Its a completely different field when you're actually competing against someone else. Google did some impressive things in the lab for sure, but they have NOT actually stepped into the competitive ring yet.
I'm sure AlphaZero is good, and probably would make a good showing at one of these contests. But you're putting the cart before the horse here.
EDIT: Maybe MCTS + Neural Nets truly is the superior way of preparing board game knowledge? If so, the next step is building out the opening-database and to start looking for holes where AlphaZero loses. It wasn't a complete blowout: AlphaZero lost some games to Stockfish. Why did AlphaZero lose in those games? Is there a set of opening moves that will lead AlphaZero down that losing path in a true competitive setting?
---------
EDIT: Case in point: Google did NOT incorporate randomness into AlphaZero's algorithm. It always chose the best move it believed in, this leads it prone to opening database attacks. See how the competitive mindset already messed AlphaZero's careful laboratory preparation up already?
Sure, AlphaZero 2.0 might have programmed randomness added to it, if this were a true competitive environment. But that's how cyborg chess evolves: I point out a weakness in the program, exploit it in a game, and then Google goes back to their labs to make something better next year.
Google played Alpha Zero vs Stockfish under their own conditions. I think this was a mistake to stay in the labs by themselves.
I think Google would have benefited from participating in WCCC 2019 for example, where Johnny (1200x core cluster) won the day.
----------
Its a completely different field when you're actually competing against someone else. Google did some impressive things in the lab for sure, but they have NOT actually stepped into the competitive ring yet.
I'm sure AlphaZero is good, and probably would make a good showing at one of these contests. But you're putting the cart before the horse here.
EDIT: Maybe MCTS + Neural Nets truly is the superior way of preparing board game knowledge? If so, the next step is building out the opening-database and to start looking for holes where AlphaZero loses. It wasn't a complete blowout: AlphaZero lost some games to Stockfish. Why did AlphaZero lose in those games? Is there a set of opening moves that will lead AlphaZero down that losing path in a true competitive setting?
---------
EDIT: Case in point: Google did NOT incorporate randomness into AlphaZero's algorithm. It always chose the best move it believed in, this leads it prone to opening database attacks. See how the competitive mindset already messed AlphaZero's careful laboratory preparation up already?
Sure, AlphaZero 2.0 might have programmed randomness added to it, if this were a true competitive environment. But that's how cyborg chess evolves: I point out a weakness in the program, exploit it in a game, and then Google goes back to their labs to make something better next year.