Master itself did OK, looking only at these numbers, didn't it?

The wording of the announcement is unclear as regards selection of "major" variations or indeed what is meant by "opening" (fuseki or joseki - I infer the former).

But insofar as I can make sense of it, the results don't seem to equate with pro tournament practice and the human moves shown must therefore be from a mix of pro and ama games but mostly ama.

If I follow the first two recommended moves (R16 then Q4) DeepMind gives 11 human moves: C17, C16, C15, C4, D17, D16, D4, D3, E17, O3 and P17.

But doing a similar exercise on a pro tournament database (approx. 90,000 games) gives a quite different result with 21 moves tried by humans, Human pros did not try the O3 given above, but did try the rest plus C5, C3, D15, D14, D5, E16, E4, E3, O17, P16 and R6.

The AG win rates are potentially interesting (but how much different from pro win rates as shown by Kombilo?), but if they include many wins against amateurs (and/or internet blitz games) they may be somewhat spurious. It would be nice if Nature could be cajoled into including a properly versed go player as one of their referees.

Just offering users the chance to find plays they have never considered before and thus be "creative" (sounds like an AI definition of the word) is not much of a selling point given the wealth of pro games around, and specifically those that were experimental such as New Fuseki, that already do that.

No. Master had/has a value network and did not rely upon MCTS quasi-random rollouts alone. Also, Master built a game tree and did not rely solely upon "win rates".

Again I ask, what were they simulating?

If so, the win rates should be perfect for SDKs, eh?

Master itself did OK, looking only at these numbers, didn't it?

No. Master had/has a value network and did not rely upon MCTS quasi-random rollouts alone. Also, Master built a game tree and did not rely solely upon "win rates".

Again I ask, what were they simulating?

But why do you think these numbers are rollouts alone?

IMO these ARE Master's evaluations, 50% value net + 50% rollout (and Master is known to had weaker value net than Zero, weak enough that dropping rollouts would damage its strength in spite of the huge speedup - and I get the feeling that you equate NN policy-based rollouts to random rollouts of the past).

For what it's worth: I think one can find the games that AlphaGo played against humans inside that tree of variations. For example (I tried that out) game No. 18 of Master (Black) against Ke Jie is contained and one can follow AlphaGo's evaluations. Interestingly, Master does not always choose the "best" continuation. OTOH, when Ke Jie played 22 M4 AlphaGo's winning percentage rose to 49.9 percent. The move suggested as alternative, which defended the l.l. corner would have kept Blacks winning percentage at 47.7.

So it might be worthwhile to follow these evaluations.

Alfie says all black's first moves are <50%, so either black should resign before placing a stone, or komi is too much.

And I'm wondering what rule AlphaGo calculate in. From the <50% Black winrate I bet it's Chinese.

Alfie says all black's first moves are <50%, so either black should resign before placing a stone, or komi is too much.

Unless the opponent is God

That's consistent with the reported 45% Black win rate in AlphaGo's selfplay games.

I actually have a bit of a concern in that rather encouraging creativity, this could make Go more like chess in terms of having a rigid opening book (this giant variation file, 7 MB sgf), will people want to keep playing openings that AlphaGo said was bad?

My opponent has remembered the variations in the tool throughtly by heart, and this give me headache. Before the publication of the tool, I think that my openning is good and ahead of the time. After the tool is published, the difference in strength of professional players has been shortened, so I can't get a lead in the openning anymore, which gives me some headache. (In the fifth match) I decided that I need to play differently than AlphaGo suggested, so I played moves from another AI, combined with my own thoughts. However I feel that my opening in the fifth match was not successful, and AIs probably would not rate it high.

Also has anyone heard about a 2 stone game A.I vs Kie Jie
also does anyone know where to find this game?