AlphaGo second paper released: AlphaGo Zero

[Kirby]

However, I think what John means is that the program is so precise, it can win against humans all the time. To such a rating program, that might lead eventually to a rating of 20 dan - but in another sense - could it give a 9 dan 11 stones?

I seriously doubt that AlphaGo Zero could give a 9-dan 11 stones.

I think that's one of the reasons it's useful to rank AlphaGo in terms of ELO points, rather than a dan ranking, which traditionally might be seen to suggest some sort of handicap (at least for amateurs). Elo is intended to calculate the relative skill level of players. At such a high level, a fraction of a stone difference in play may correspond to a significant difference in relative skill.

In short, I'd suspect AlphaGo Zero is more like an infallible Lee Changho, than an uber Go Seigen.

[pookpooi]

I'm a fan of strength in stones too because there's no fun in Elo, though I don't think my wish (oldstyle Jubango match between human and AI) will come true
Anyway, we have a new information on this from Reddit AMA

David Silver: We haven't played handicap games against human players - we really wanted to focus on even games which after all are the real game of Go. However, it was useful to test different versions of AlphaGo against each other under handicap conditions. Using names of major versions from Zero paper, AlphaGo Master > AlphaGo Lee > AlphaGo Fan, each version defeated its predecessor with 3 handicap stones. But there are some caveats to this evaluation, as the networks were not specifically trained for handicap play. Also since AlphaGo is trained by self-play, it is specially good at defeating weaker versions of itself. So I don't think we can generalise these results to human handicap games in any meaningful way.

Now back to my opinion. We all know that the 'real world gap' between AlphaFan and AlphaLee are two full stones rather than three. So let me make an unscientific big assumption that the 'real world gap' between AlphaLee and Master are also two full stones too. So the new arrangement (relatively to KGS ranking system) is
AlphaFan 9d
AlphaLee 11d
Master 13d
Now while Zero can probably give Master one full handicap stone (it's 327 elo stronger than Master, already calibrate down from its 89% winrate against Master which account for 363 elo difference) , the 'real world gap' assumes it can only give a KGS 13d human player no komi advantage. So the rank might be
Zero 13.7d
That means Zero can give KGS 9d human opponents no komi with four additional free moves, an H5 game in KGS term. Ke Jie is estimated to be KGS 11d so Zero can only play an H3 game with him.

I think this is good enough to claim that Zero is the strongest go player in history even in relative strength (that determined by how big the gap is between no.1 player and players below him). It's not gonna be as impactful as Go Seigen for sure. But in Reddit AMA David Silver also hint that the 'AlphaGo tool' is work in progress.

PS. AMA also reveal in Chinese rule White has 55% winrate according to AlphaGo. In Japanese rule Hideki Kato said DeepZen also slightly favor white (not black as I assumed at first). So I think AI treat komi as precious free point.

[EdLee]

People tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate it in the long run.

Seem to remember Bill Gates said it, but not sure if he was paraphrasing someone else.

2 to 3 stones above top human seems reasonable.
For now.
( Seem to remember at least one or two top people -- Mr. Ke Jie ? Mr. Lee Sedol ? -- mentioned about AGM, "not confident with H2". )

[pookpooi]

2 to 3 stones above top human seems reasonable.
For now.
( Seem to remember at least one or two top people -- Mr. Ke Jie ? Mr. Lee Sedol ? -- mentioned about AGM, "not confident with H2". )

Lee Sedol said (after future of go summit) that he's confident with 2 stones

https://mobile.twitter.com/GoFederation ... 1108793344

But someone with better translation tell me that he refer to top professional as a whole (but that's gonna including himself as well)

More insight on pro react to Master 60 games online

Choi Cheol Han: It will be interesting with 2 stones.

Park: with 2 stones we still win. With Black we have no chance. Very much later? With 6 stones, we always win, with 4 ...

Choi Jung: with 2 stones I think that I will not lose, but who knows ...

Shin: 50% with 2 stones.

Won: 50% with Black + 3 Reverse Komi.

Shin: 2 Stones: 20 points, 3 Stones: 30 points + Alpha, 4 Stones: 40 points + Alpha. No big difference between 4 and 5 stones. 6 stones are more than 90 points. With 6 stones I bet not only money, but also my life.

Won: For me are 2 stones are 19 points, 3 stones are 33 points, 4 stones are 50 points. No Alphago of the world will be able to give 6 stones to a professional. Only when it controls our senses in a supernatural way.

Choi Cheol Han: Time control also plays a role. Lots of time, better games.

Park: Yes, between standard time control and rapid games there is a 4-5 point difference in the level of play.
(Points, not stones)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 1584704147

[Bonobo]

Tangential … re: John’s quote of Amara’s Law

Cargo cult alert: "People tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate it in the long run."

This is a famous quotation though I don't know who said it. [..]

Amara’s Law:
We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.
— Roy Amara

From the linked Wikipedia page:

Roy Charles Amara (7 April 1925 – 31 December 2007]) was an American researcher, scientist, futurist and president of the Institute for the Future best known for coining Amara's law on the effect of technology.

See also https://spotlessdata.com/amaras-law


From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle:

[Bill Spight]

Tangential … re: John’s quote of Amara’s Law

Cargo cult alert: "People tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate it in the long run."

This is a famous quotation though I don't know who said it. [..]

Amara’s Law:
We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.
— Roy Amara

From the linked Wikipedia page:

Roy Charles Amara (7 April 1925 – 31 December 2007]) was an American researcher, scientist, futurist and president of the Institute for the Future best known for coining Amara's law on the effect of technology.

See also https://spotlessdata.com/amaras-law


From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle:

The telegraph is a good example. Oh, wait!

"And we get our news like lightning
On the telegraphic wire."
-- 19th century song

[gowan]

I don't understand. Difference in rating is defined by winning probability.

If a rating system is based on winning probability, then of course it is defined by such.

However, I think what John means is that the program is so precise, it can win against humans all the time. To such a rating program, that might lead eventually to a rating of 20 dan - but in another sense - could it give a 9 dan 11 stones?

To me it is like comparing Go Seigen and Lee ChangHo in their primes. It certainly looked as if Go Seigen was 11 dan - he could probably hold his own against 9 dans at 2 stones - certainly he proved he could at one stone. Lee Changho, on the other hand seemed precisely one or two points better than everyone else - not ranks but points.

John is questioning whether the program is an uber Go Seigen, or simply an infallible Lee Changho

All this discussion about KGS ranks is flawed. There is no evidence that the rating system can be extrapolated accurately so far from the mass of the existing data. Pros used to play with handicaps in the past and one handicap stone corresponded to approximately three dan levels. Thus, if Alphago Zero were actually 20 dan on the pro scale, human 9-dans would only take three or four stones It might be interesting to see a trial in practice having Alphago Zero play Ke Jie with Ke taking handicaps to see just how big a handicap would be needed to give Ke a good chance of winning. Seems to me that it would not need such a big handicap. Maybe Alphago Zero wouldn't play, just resigning once the handicap stones were played.

[Bill Spight]

Maybe Alphago Zero wouldn't play, just resigning once the handicap stones were played.

[pookpooi]

Demis Hassabis said at Google Canada conference today that DeepMind 'may' resume AlphaGo Zero in the future, they can't find Zero's asymptote but they've to stop because they have to use computer for something else.


His speech is in a part of this full conference video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8uhm7wLWAE

[Bonobo]

Demis Hassabis [..]

His speech is in a part of this full conference video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8uhm7wLWAE

Begins here https://youtu.be/n8uhm7wLWAE?t=3544 (to save you from having to go through ~8 hours of video )

[pookpooi]

Aja Huang has conference today at Taiwan. Here's some highlight from Google translation

60 games Master series were played from his home in Taiwan, he's so afraid of internet connection loss, and he play all day except when he's break for eating meal, and this is the picture of the meal


When Fan Hui lost to AlphaGo in the second game he need to walk, and Aja Huang ask if he can walk with him because he's the only one who can speak Chinese beside Fan Hui, but Fan Hui said no, I just want to breath. And when he came back he became very positive

AlphaGo Zero use 2000 TPU for training (I check multiple source to confirm this, because 1000 TPU is already 44 petaflops, the fastest supercomputer in the world is 93 petaflops)

Aja Huang think Lee Sedol exude competitive aura, while Ke Jie exude friendly aura (I think maybe because they spoke the same language)

source in traditional chinese https://www.inside.com.tw/2017/11/10/aja-alphago-zero
in simplified chinese http://sports.sina.com.cn/go/2017-11-10 ... 4372.shtml