All relative, Lee Sedol could give other pros 4 stones (like AGA pros), so its not a massive gulf by any means.

Also want to point out margin of victory is deceptive in Go, especially with MCTS programs. They choose the highest win probably, they don't try to maximize score at all.

Maybe 4 is too much; probably 3 -- the AGA guys got beat down to 2 stones,
and were just about to drop to 3 when the tourney was suddenly terminated.

A former insei from China estimates Lee Sedol could give him 2 stones. That's already immense.

I think what you're saying is true to a point, especially when you are studying the game. However, many invest heavily in the idea that a game is meaningful because it is between two people, a conversation if you will. You can't get that human connection with a computer. So a good move by a computer just doesn't carry the same weight. That's not to say playing against a strong computer is useless, but it is a different sort of thing.

Yes, I understand that. As a matter of fact, this was one of my observation when I played some on-line bots, so I share your overall sentiment.

This is why, for the sake of this discussion, I stated that a computer shall make good moves.
In other words - *if* plays well, why not learn from it. Since there are some programs who claim to be high dans and some who can beat pros on 4h, I assume they must make some pretty good moves, on average.

So I guess my question is:
Is it worthless and boring to play against a computer because it is a computer, regardless of how well it plays, or is that attitude attached to the poor state of today's computers and will change when computers get stronger?

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

This is an interesting approach. Thanks.

However, in the context of the game-as-conversation, what you say is that you dismiss a good argument because it comes from a source you dislike. Or something like that.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Tim, are you saying that a go playing computer program would fail the "Turing Test"?

Assume that you are playing go against an opponent on a server, one that does not allow for side conversations, so the only interactions you have with your opponent are the moves made.

What is the value of this experience to you? Does this value change after the game if somebody tells you "your opponent in this game was a computer" or "your opponent was a computer"? <<you can't tell from the game itself; that's the "Turing Test", tell human from computer>> Having made the assignment of value to the game based on whether you were told human or computer does this value change once you consuder that perhaps you were lied to?

I don't think that's what I'm saying at all. What I'm trying to say is that there is intrinsic value in playing a game with another human because the game then transforms into a type of conversation with that person. The game allows us to connect as two human beings. It's sort of like when I read a book, I can connect with the author on some level. If that book was written by a computer, who would I be connecting with?

I'm not saying that playing against a computer is valueless. As a practiced Backgammon player, I have often used a strong computer program to evaluate matches, and to try to learn where I may have gone wrong. Even playing a match against the computer is a learning experience, and one that has value. But that experience is akin to studying, not playing against another person.

From a mathematical point of view, it's perhaps easy to dismiss this point of view. After all, Go can be represented as a math problem. That's interesting, but I don't think that's why everyone plays games. I want to interact with another person, to match my wits against his or hers. Matching my skill against a computer is almost like playing against a room full of pros who can work in perfect collaboration. That's hardly the experience of one mind against one mind.

Interesting question. However, I think limiting the test to a server that does not allow for chat is a bit like cheating. I generally don't play games where I have no chat option. Maybe that says something about my personality, and what I'm looking for in games. Nonetheless, I'll try to answer in the spirit in which the question was asked...

I don't think I'm skilled enough to tell a human player from a computer player, at least not if either were playing at a sufficiently high skill level. Perhaps I could tell a human apart from a computer if both were roughly at or below my own skill level. But a computer that was slightly above me? -- I think it would pass the Turing Test assuming no other interaction but the moves on the board.

If I played a game on a server, and only learned after that fact that my opponent was a computer program, I'm not sure how I'd feel. I suppose I would at first feel cheated because it wasn't the experience I was hoping for. Later, after thinking about the game, I I would feel -- maybe, interested is the right word? The game would transform from one type of experience to another. Both would be potentially valuable, but for different reasons.

Let me pose another hypothetical that I think falls into the same category. What if you were playing a similar game, but later found out that your "opponent" was really a team of players working together, discussing moves, and otherwise collaborating? How would that change the way you felt about the game? As a potential learning experience, or as a novelty, I'm guessing you'd be interested. However, wouldn't you also feel like the other side cheated because they changed the rules without telling you ahead of time?

A computer doesn't feel pain when you kill them. Isn't that part of the joy of playing or am I unusually sadistic?

I don't think so, as long as you appreciate that part of a good fight is taking some licks yourself (otherwise, you're just a bully). To me, go is less like a conversation and more like a boxing match. I play less to enjoy someones company and more to enjoy fighting with them. It's a nice side benefit if they happen to be pleasant people, but I do see that as a side benefit - albeit an important one.

As such, I prefer playing with a human opponent because it feels like a real fight, but a computer can be a good sparring partner too. It doesn't feel pain - but only because it can't. If it could act like it did, I wouldn't mind watching it squirm.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Well ...... let's say that "chatting" was allowed. The current state of the art (actually going back decades in this regard) is that an AI program might be able to fake passing the Turing Test in chatting provided the realm of discourse (what you are chatting about) were limited. By "fake" I mean a sort of cheating where the program uses tricks to get out of situations where it can't figure out what you "said" (typed). Ranges from "Doctor" asking about your mother, "Parry" getting aggressive, etc. Here I think some set of "let's concentrate on the game", "let's stick to talking about go", etc. might do the trick to fool a human.

But more to the point, I think you missed the final part of what I was saying. Yes I understand, based upon what you "found out" later your feelings about the game, the value of the game, etc. would change. However note that this was the result only of your belief, not about any reality << I did include the possibility that you might have been misinformed >>

Yes, told that it was a team that beat you you feel "cheated". But that's not because it was a team against you but because you were told a team against you and you believed that.

what I find misleading is that the article is about a game that was played a year ago (its buried in there somewhere that the game was played last March).


March of this year, in the 2nd Denseisen, Crazy Stone won again, this time against Yoda -- and also on 4 stones.

And, like last year, Zen also played our pros on 4 stones -- but lost.
As far as I can tell, in both the 7th UEC (this year) and the 6th (last March), Zen won overall over Crazy Stone.

While we were worrying about computers coming onto the scene, apparently the chickens managed to cross the road into go solving...

Researchers Solve 9x9 Go using Chickens

Humanity had a good run, but I guess we need to let the superior intelligences of the world have their way with our game.

_________________
"You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move.
I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through
my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1."
-Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves

Heh... if you enjoy other's pain, then yes, this is pretty much the definition of "sadistic".
Also, it begs the question - how do you feel about playing masochists who enjoy pain? No fun?

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I'm sorry, Mike, but I don't think I'm following you. If I understand correctly, you're making a distinction between my belief about who or what I'm playing and the objective reality of the situation. However, I'm not sure how those two things are different in the example you're giving.

I could believe that I'm playing a computer, or I could believe that I'm playing a human. Either of those things could be objectively true given that the game is happening over the internet. I'm saying that, yes, my attitude towards the game would change based on who I believed I was playing -- but, I'm going to base that belief (regarding who I'm playing) on what I'm told before the game begins. If I visit KGS, for example, and get into a game, I'm going to know ahead of time if my opponent claims to be a bot or a human.

Are you asking me how I would feel if I started playing a game and knew nothing about what my opponent was ahead of time? If so, I have no idea. If I were to guess, I suppose I would assume human, and then feel cheated if I found out afterwards that it was actually a computer. I'll reserve my explanation for why that is until after you respond. I've made a lot of assumptions, and I want to hear from you first.

Lol'ed at this bit from the article:

“the status of one group can affect that of its neighbors—like a cowboy who points a revolver at another cowboy, only to find himself covered by a rifleman on a roof.”



Just insert own name at the end.

_________________
"Tsumegos are for reading power and Tesujis for knowing which moves to read"

I was just catching up with this event (the Electronic Holy War) for GoGoD, and I came across a significant piece of information that will alter perceptions. In both games there was komi of 6.5, so the difference was half a stone more or less than stated, which is quite a lot at this level.

The trouble is, I don't know who gave komi. The Japanese says "senban" which means "first to play", but it does not state who is first to play. Obviously the first numbered stone is White 1, but it can be argued that Black's placement of handicap stones counts as first move, and senban usually does refer to Black.

The report also says, incidentally, that Japanese rules were used. I wonder how the games finished. Unfortunately the report only gives the first 100 moves for the CS game (CS won by 2.5) and it gives 229 moves for the Zen game, which appears to be a complete record, but the result caption says "Black's resignation was unavoidable".

Can anyone cut through the murk?

Hiroshi Yamashita posted a link with what he says are official SGFs. http://computer-go.org/pipermail/comput ... 06588.html

_________________
Occupy Babel!

once you get them, you can add "CA[Shift-JIS]" to the end of the first line (without the quotes, of course) in order to properly render the name of the game title: 無題 (which means "untitled")

Thank you. These give the komi as 0.5, which accords with normal computer practice of course, but also fits the result of the one game that was scored (and given in full in the link). Looks like Gekkan Go World has major mistakes, of the type that brought back memories of T Mark's gnashing teeth!

Among the comments I found interesting were that in the CS game Black was ahead by 20 points after 100 moves. This suggests he has already lost 20 or more points through strategic ineptitude, and almost all of the remaining 20 points were apparently lost through a tendency for the program to play inside its own territory when it thought it was winning.

It was also observed that CS has a tendency to emphasise the centre, which can work easily with large handicaps but might be a lot trickier in an even game.

Zen, also a member of the centrist party, appeared to do much better than CS in that it had maintained more of the 4-stone advantage after 100 moves, but lost (by the narrowest of margins) through an endgame mistake.

Yoda said CS made better moves than he expected, and in fact was totally different from what he was expecting. It seems he was expecting lots of stupid fighting. I think we may reasonably infer that he must have based this on typical human behaviour. There's a lesson in there!