Human level far below the optimum

dankenzon · **#21**

pookpooi wrote:

It can be answered in resource aspect. IBM immediately abandon computer chess right after it won against Kasparov in 1997. While DeepMind increasing AlphaGo team members even after Lee Sedol match. If DeepMind doesn't publish any paper, and retire AlphaGo immediately in March, it gonna takes more time for sure.

Deepmind did publish their paper explaining the approach they did with AlphaGo.

The whole idea has been immediately added/plugged to several bots. And as far as there's more memory and chance for they to practice more, they will be stronger.

The real question is:
is it an optimal/"non plus ultra" level of Go?

dankenzon · **#22**

Tumtumtum wrote:

Gomoto wrote:

Quote:

In conclusion, computer go is nowhere close to optimal play.

I do not agree.

How could you not agree? Chess softwares are 400-800 elos away from perfect play. Go is a much more complicated game.
The reason why humans could last so long in chess is just due to draws being an option. Even now one might get one.

I think all the games will remain: because at the end even the stronger more computer like human who learns from a computer, may learn their ideas and approach, but will never handle the detail of the game. See Carlsen, Caruana and others: this top players are quite precise and have a way to play different from all the previous schools, but still make mistakes.

Human level far below the optimum

Who is online