Sure thing. I'll play it and upload games here. Nice challenge

This remind me of Mogo, French MCTS bot just like Crazy Stone. It famous around 2007-2011 when it challenge pro/top amateur players with super computer, like 512 cores of the Louhi Cray XT4/XT5 supercomputer (and still lose to Catalin Taranu 5p in 7 stones handicap), 200 node supercomputer with 4 cores per node (and lose to Myungwan Kim 8p, also in 7 stones handicap), 640 cores of the Huygens supercomputer in Amsterdam (and lose to Chun-Hsun Chou 9p and Shih Chin 2p in 7 stones handicap game)

Pardon me but it is nowhere near Crazy Stone. Mogo strength is kyu level.

At that time Crazy Stone is also Kyu level.
At 2007 Amsterdam Computer Olympiad, in 19x19 category, Mogo got Gold medal while Crazy Stone got Silver medal.

You mean it fails to see a snapback?

I see. Anyway I am sure that you can reach a pro level by only using a MC method.

I agree, if Zen kept on improving like it was before AlphaGo made neural nets all the rage (not that is was the first to use a policy network, only value network) then I would be fairly sure it would beat a low pro at most 5 years from back then (it was about European 5 to 6 dan in 2015: FJ Dickhut German 6d beat it 3-1) and quite possible sooner, and faster if it got more developers/processing power. But to go from that to beating Lee Sedol is quite a jump that I thought would take 10 years or more without the value network revolution.

The original poster seems to think that power consumption should be comparable for an equal match. I immediately thought of it a different way and read the entire thread look for a mention of it. No one else did, so here it is. What do you think?

Trying to compare robots with humans is like comparing apples to oranges. I was reminded of the character Data in the old Star Trek series. He was a humanoid robot, self contained although able to access some universal database. This is ultimately where computers are heading. So to me, instead of comparing power usage, how about comparing the human to a computer which is totally self contain and able to fit into a humanoid body? Could the computer sit down at a table opposite a human and, with no external power input, win the game. An external humanoid appearance would be window dressing - it is the size which counts.

Just an alternative perspective and one which many will take issue with.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Can we use batteries or is that considered an external source of energy? By that logic human player should be starved for days since our external energy source is food.

You clearly did not watch Star Trek.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

I think we could fit new tesla battery inside a human body (total volume not the shape). plus some volume for the computer itself (mobo + gpu). So I guess we could create a robot that is self powered and could move a limb in order to play a move. The battery would probably last for few hours.

A computer that is self contained and uses the same amount of energy as a human will certainly sooner rather than later beat humans at go, probably less than one human lifetime from now. I base that on the advances that have been made in computer software and hardware during my lifetime. There is no reason to expect that this rate of advance will slow down. I would actually be very surprised if a device that is the size of a modern smartphone and uses the same amount of power could easily beat a pro 20 or 30 years from now.

Computers barely exist within a lifetime so far.

HOWEVER -- I just thought of another way to look at the original question that might be more meaningful to folks. A device using that amount of energy over the length of time of a go game might be a PORTABLE device.

So --- how soon do we expect that level of play on something like a portable workstation class device? << resembles your laptop in size and weight and can run a couple hours on its battery -- but these devices have more powerful CPUs and GPUs than your typical desktop >> BTW, THAT is the "advance" question. A great deal of the research/engineering goes into creating components not more powerful but can have the same or close to the same using a less power precisely so can be in a portable device with useful operating time not plugged in.

What's the current state of the art? Crazy Stone is dan level on smartphones now. I think Leela 0.9.0 with GPU acceleration is borderline for finishing a whole game on my laptop (i7 7500U ultrabook). It just now burned 16% of my battery playing 25 moves for each side (computer and me), but I don't know quite how strong it is on this machine.

Edit: forgot I had an integrated GPU which both will save power and hurt performance. In fact, Leela's author says this GPU may perform worse than not using it...I really did not care about GPUs when I bought this machine.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Great idea, energy as the big equalizer.
I would add: humans should only be allowed the same amount of WC breaks as machines need: "WC break time parity"

But human brain on it's own can't do anything. Brain requires functioning body in order to function itself.

Average male needs 2500 calories per day. So if match lasts around 5 hours I guess we could just divide 2500 by 5 for simplicity?

500 calories is 2092000 Joules.
Power (watts) = Joules per unit of time (seconds).
5 hours = 18000 seconds.
So in those 5 hours we get around 116 watts of power that average human body uses.
Did I miss something in the math?

Well looking at it from the other side, a significant portion of the things the brain is doing have nothing to do with go. Perhaps you need to cut the amount of energy spent to the amount actually used on go, as opposed to things like breathing, digestion, locomotion etc. Or maybe the computer should be required to handle all those functions as well?

I think we shouldn't because all parts of the body are quite important for the body and thus the brain to function. Our eyes and vision are needed, hand motions, and bunch of other mental stuff like keeping your spirits up (motivation), fear etc.
Without a healthy body brain can't properly function.
Also a fan that is cooling the hardware has nothing to do with the game of go itself but without it hardware would overheat.

this whole thread should be in Off-topic, because it's clear to any reader other than the writers that their conversation is not about Go per se, but about man vs machine in general. And it's clear to any amateur shrink - it's so obvious, you don't need to be a pro - that the motivation for the conversation is a deep sense of insecurity+hubris, a common dissonance, especially among those schooled in the tradition that they are cast in the image of God, whereas it is clear that Dog is God when it comes to Go - until, that is, when Swim is born and will grab the monkey by the tail and throw it out of the tree.

Instead of fretting about how impotent Ke Jie is when faced by the Dog - or, in my case, even by her little sister / mini-clone Leela - you could instead marvel at how marvellous Aplysia is; how it manages to do so much with so few neurons. Or, indeed, how wise E.Coli is, with none at all!

The computational machinery of Nature is the greatest Wonder of both the Ancient and Modern world - sure, we can't out-bulldoze a bulldozer, or out-climb a thimbleful of petrol up a hill. but our machinery has enabled us (or, rather, them, since not many people have) to figure out that babies are not gifts from the Moon, and that the Sun does not rise in the East and set in the West, and does not die and become reborn every Christmas (or Easter - take your pick) as the Good Bok says, which is wrong about just about everything, but still casts the stone-minds of the gullible.

When it comes to power/weight ratios, i have been mightily impressed by the remarkable progress of hardware technology over the last 50 years, and mightily disappointed by the equally remarkable lack of progress of software technology over the same period. If anything, it seems to be going backwards.

_________________
i shrink, therefore i swarm