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

uurtamo . uurtamo at gmail.com
Tue Oct 24 17:04:30 PDT 2017


We're suffering under the burden of so much success from other methods that
‚Äčit's hard for many people to imagine that anything else is worth
considering.

Of course this is not true.

Tromp's enumerations are particularly enjoyable for me.

Human-built decision trees have been so unsuccessful, compared with
machine-learned models, for around 25 years, that only a few tiny wisps of
academia are interested in them in a serious way that industry can and
should take seriously.

Some control-system methods, some ILP, some NLP, etc., are all successful
counterexamples, in many cases in the field of logistics, transportation,
etc. Complicated games such as go have pretty much not fallen due to these
methods.

(As a coworker of mine said recently, "It's probably going to be okay to
hard-code the rule for the self-driving car not to hit pedestrians; there's
no need to train with lots of examples of hitting pedestrians to train your
algorithm".)

They (analytically exact methods) are still interesting to study from a
game-theoretic persepective, mathematically. There are exact solvers for
all kinds of specialized problems.

Problems with more than a few variables can very easily lead to many or
most cases not being exactly (analytically) soluble. That's why all of
these probabilistic approximation methods are so successful. They don't
have to be exactly right. It's easing the constraint most people care least
about (exact certitude of a win or success locally rather than an extremely
high probability of a win or success locally).

Asking the "high probability of success" guys to explain why their method
works is a particularly galling (and trite) way of messing with them. They
can just point to the results. The reason is that they don't know. And it's
going to be a very, very long time before they do.

At a fundamental level, probabilistic methods seem to be (some
theoreticians believe) more powerful than non-probabilistic methods for
relatively hard (as opposed to very very hard) problems. This is nicely
encoded by computational complexity theorists as the question BPP = P ?

steve



On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Robert Jasiek <jasiek at snafu.de> wrote:

> On 24.10.2017 20:19, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>
>> totally unrelated
>>
>
> No, because a) software must also be evaluated and can by go theory and b)
> software can be built on exact go theory. That currently (b) is unpopular
> does not mean unrelated.
>
> --
> robert jasiek
>
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20171024/317581db/attachment.html>


More information about the Computer-go mailing list