[Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

Robert Jasiek jasiek at snafu.de
Mon Oct 23 21:35:42 PDT 2017


On 23.10.2017 19:15, Xavier Combelle wrote:
> [personal attack deleted]
> Did you already encounter a real game with "disturbing life kos or
> anti-sekis" and especially "ladders (...) beyond 250 moves" ? If not how
> do you believe that Alphago would learn how to manage such situations.

Dave Dyer wrote:
> I wonder how alphago-0 treats the menagerie of special positions, such as
> bent 4 in the corner, thousand year ko, rotating ko, etc.

uurtamo wrote:
 > It will be interesting to realize that those specialized positions
 > (thousand-year-ko, bent 4) are actually a microscopic issue in
 > game-winning.

The exceptional cases may be rarities in practical play but not all are 
that rare. E.g., I have had two games in roughly 40,000 ending with a 
double ko seki. Already one "rarity" occurring occasionally means that 
all rarities occur more often in practice. Therefore they do have 
practical relevance. Quite like a white truck is relevant and not to be 
confused with the sky, or an AI car can kill (which has happened because 
of such a "rarity"). In go, the consequences or misjudging "rarities" 
are just up a lost game, but this is the very purpose - avoiding lost 
games by avoiding errors. Rarities are good test samples for checking 
whether an AI program avoids errors in non-standard situations.

The same must be studied for standard situations, whose deeper details 
can also lead to errors. Not because a standard by itself would be 
difficult but because the deeper details increase complexity and this 
can lead to errors. Studying the standards and identifying errors in 
their deeper details can be difficult. E.g., we see AlphaGo (Zero) 
invading and living in a large moyo or not invading and wonder why. Part 
of the answer would be: invading and living is impossible. Studying this 
is complex because it involves deep reading for the standard case of a 
moyo and the question of invading it.

The "rarities" are infrequent but can be good test tools because 
distinguishing correct from wrong play can be easy if a rarity's 
behaviour is understood well. The standards are frequent but often not 
the best test tools because many standards interact with each other and 
they all depend on deep reading and exact positional judgement.

I cannot know if AlphaGo Zero has already learnt how to play in (some) 
rarities (those that can be solved earlier than the constant game end 
rule; e.g., we cannot test 4 octuple kos), will learn it or would not be 
able to learn it - but I want to know. In particular, because I want to 
know which errors AlphaGo Zero does make.

I want to know this for go and for the general AI project. Avoiding 
errors is essential for both. I do not fall into the illusion that 
AlphaGo Zero would be the perfect player but expect that it can make 
errors at any (unexpected) time. We need to understand what causes 
errors, how frequent they are and what most extreme consequences they 
can have. Rarities are one very good study tool for this purpose.

-- 
robert jasiek


More information about the Computer-go mailing list