Re: [math-fun] can't win by resigning
Actually, the go endgame isn't just "tidying up the boundaries": I can just invade your territory. If you play right my invasion will eventually die, it was unjustified, so humans do not do it. (Except: if it is a pro versus me, he'd likely do an unjustified invasion anyhow because he'd guess I'd often be too dumb to respond correctly.) But my point is, all those invasions and refutations always are there like a sleeping volcano beneath the surface, strong humans just never play them and their refutations, since it'd be a waste of time; they just agree to end the game. It doesn't hurt your score in chinese rules if you play an unjustified invasion which gets killed, so in principle you should try it. What that also means: the part of alphago's training that was based on strong human games, contained zero examples of that stuff! So maybe if Lee Sedol tried it, alphago would mess up. I guarantee you, it has a higher probability of working than resigning. Also, presumably alphago usually works well, but even its designers really do not understand why and cannot guarantee it will not do something crazy next move. It really is an AI in the sense that nobody understands what it is thinking and there is no way it could explain it to us. Unlike, say, today's strongest chess programs, which I feel I pretty much totally understand -- they have human designed evaluation functions with some parameters tuned by fairly crude automated methods, but the whole evaluation function is something a human understands. That again, means if Lee Sedol took more of a software tester attitude, it could pay. Anyhow, LS has been rocked! There was a little press interview with LS after, and he looked a bit like he might break into tears. He said he just could not believe the machine could beat him, and even when LS felt he was behind, he still figured it was just a matter of time before machine would find a way to blow it. :) -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
Well, if software testers refused to try to find bugs due to "etiquette" then there would be a lot more bugs. Tim Krabbe has amusing collection of over 30 chess games in which somebody resigned in a won position... sometimes even grandmaster, championship, and correspondence games... http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/resigntxt.htm he then also had the groundbreaking notion of the "worst possible move" where you find a move such that your opponent is forced to win... whereas every other move you could make is a win for you even if you try not to... as a chess problemist goal. E.g. in this position https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/c&h47.GIF white has 47 legal moves, 46 of which mate black, but if Qe7+ then black is forced to mate white in 1. And https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/crusats178.GIF white has 178 legal moves, 177 of which force white to win even if he tries not to, but the 178th forces black to win even if he tries not to. I'm not advocating Lee Sedol keep playing hard to try to win. I'm advocating he just keep playing -- not even necessarily trying hard, just seeing whether alphago will go crazy. Alphago in the part of its training from strong human games must have had zero examples of play continuing beyond where humans would normally stop. It probably would not work, but beats resigning and would take near zero effort.... Krabbe also has a few examples of humans who figured out how to beat chess computers and other weird shit http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/honor.htm
On 10/03/2016 17:19, Warren D Smith wrote:
Well, if software testers refused to try to find bugs due to "etiquette" then there would be a lot more bugs.
But they haven't employed Lee Sedol as a tester. They've challenged him to a go match. My guess as to the actual question here: once the game gets near the end, I suspect AlphaGo's tree search will produce extremely strong play even if its neural networks mess up. So even conditional on the scenario you describe where AlphaGo's training hasn't equipped it to evaluate things well in unusual positions, I think it's very unlikely that playing on would have given Lee Sedol a non-negligible extra chance of winning. -- g
Lee Sedol to some extent tried what I suggested in game 3; white had a large territory which the commentator thought could not be invaded. Lee Sedol nevertheless invaded it, and basically his invasion failed, and alphago sort of expressed some degree of contempt for that by actually tenuki-ing in response to one of the invasion moves, albeit usually actually attacking the invaders and defending itself versus the invasion, just not always. So, his invasion was duly crucified, and Lee Sedol then resigned. Three-zip and alphago has now clinched the match. To my eyes, which are not worth much since I'm a weak go player, alphago looked to be owning and operating Lee Sedol during the majority of both games 2 and 3, and a goodly fraction of the alphago moves that commentators claimed were mistakes... actually may not be and they're rethinking their views on them. Games 1 and 3 can be viewed as alphago punishing LS for early mistakes he made, game 2 can be regarded as a new opening innovation by alphago sprung on LS before he'd made any mistake, and then carried through successfully despite seeming a priori against usual heuristics. Nothing that looks like a weakness of alphago has yet been detected by LS and the mob of 9 dans thick on the ground over there. Humanity definitely looking like toast. The English language commentary I was watching was viewed by 50-100K worldwide. But commentaries meanwhile were being televised in China, Korea, and Japan with their 9 dans commenting, and were watched by about 60 freaking million. Definitely makes the West look lame that go is such a major TV hit in Asia, whereas in the USA, if you wanted to watch a go or chess match on TV with strong commentary, then as far as I can tell zero examples in the last 30 years. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
participants (2)
-
Gareth McCaughan -
Warren D Smith