Life In 19x19

Magicwand wrote:how do i play this Zen program...????
i need some instruction to play this Zen

Look for Zen in the the computer go room on KGS

I do wonder if IBM could crack human Go superiority if Zen was ported to the Watson hardware.

For this challenge, Zen ran on 12 cores at 4.2 GHz. Watson has 720 cores at 3.5 GHz. Granted, the instruction sets differ between CPU architectures and there are going to be some challenges and decreasing efficiency at that networking scale, but if MCTS scales in a linear manner with computing power, that would make for a very interesting bout with some high Dan players.

It's definitely not linear. Improving the number of playouts by an order of magnitude seems to have a relatively small increase in strength for current MCTS bots.

Satorian wrote:I do wonder if IBM could crack human Go superiority if Zen was ported to the Watson hardware.

For this challenge, Zen ran on 12 cores at 4.2 GHz. Watson has 720 cores at 3.5 GHz. Granted, the instruction sets differ between CPU architectures and there are going to be some challenges and decreasing efficiency at that networking scale, but if MCTS scales in a linear manner with computing power, that would make for a very interesting bout with some high Dan players.

Monte Carlo engines have used supercomputers before, but not with any results that are much more impressive than this one. E.g in 2009, MoGo played against some professionals on the Huygens supercomputer, using 640 cores at 4.7 GHz. It managed to win one game out of four played on 7 stones against Zhou Junxun 9p.

Full list: http://www.computer-go.info/h-c/index.html

Satorian wrote:......
For this challenge, Zen ran on 12 cores at 4.2 GHz. Watson has 720 cores at 3.5 GHz. ........

To give you an empirical sense of the non-linearity consider the results of what you can see right here at this site.

In the Markovich section we have some examples of fuego playing on a "standard machine" but given around 10 minutes per move rather than 10 seconds. On the same machine that is also a ratio of 60:1 and so comparable to what you suggest. In other words, that 60 fold increase in crunch power is worth a few stones at this point on the curve of fuego's playing strength. We shouldn't assume that another 60 fold increase would be worth a similar few stones. Likewise, as we decreased crunch power we would reach a place on the curve where the change of playing strength with crunch was very rapid (below a minimum amount, the algorithm would work very poorly if at all).

Mike Novack wrote: We shouldn't assume that another 60 fold increase would be worth a similar few stones. Likewise, as we decreased crunch power we would reach a place on the curve where the change of playing strength with crunch was very rapid (below a minimum amount, the algorithm would work very poorly if at all).

... Which makes complete sense when you think about human ranks as a log scale. As players, we are exponentially distributed in terms of skill, not linearly.

The humans may have lost this battle, but I believe that on any hardware top professionals will kill the program in an even game. In 20 years, who knows who'll win. Humanity will eventually lose to the top programs.

Suji wrote:The humans may have lost this battle, but I believe that on any hardware top professionals will kill the program in an even game. In 20 years, who knows who'll win. Humanity will eventually lose to the top programs.

I sort of agree with the conclusion but not because of expected improvement in crunch power. Twenty years is a relatively long time in terms of the conceptual advances that have taken place in the programs. I don't expect that the MCTS programs will directly improve that much but we might have another breakthrough or a clever trick using MCTS to greater davantage.

Interesting replies.

Can somebody explain the jump in AI quality that's been achieved going from Deep Blue to the 2006 defeat of Kramnik against Fritz on what was quite modest hardware?

Mike Novack wrote:

Suji wrote:The humans may have lost this battle, but I believe that on any hardware top professionals will kill the program in an even game. In 20 years, who knows who'll win. Humanity will eventually lose to the top programs.

I sort of agree with the conclusion but not because of expected improvement in crunch power. Twenty years is a relatively long time in terms of the conceptual advances that have taken place in the programs. I don't expect that the MCTS programs will directly improve that much but we might have another breakthrough or a clever trick using MCTS to greater advantage.

The crunch power won't hurt, though. It's going to have to be a combination of conceptual breakthroughs and computing power.

Satorian wrote:Interesting replies.

Can somebody explain the jump in AI quality that's been achieved going from Deep Blue to the 2006 defeat of Kramnik against Fritz on what was quite modest hardware?

Deep Blue played really well in the match that it beat Garry Kasparov. Lest history evaluate that match incorrectly, Kasparov played much worse than usual, playing an anti-computer strategy, rather than playing normal and beating the machine.

Also, Kramnik's defeat in 2006 was kind of flukey. I say this because he blundered a mate in one in game 2, and then in game six he had to play a sharp tactical game, which played into Fritz's hands. Kramnik should have drawn that match.

In regards to the jump in AI quality, a number of techniques like LMR, have been invented, the evals are probably more accurate, and the overall speed of the engines have increased due to jumps in computing power. As of right now, chess engines are probably generally stronger than the best humans.

Suji wrote:In 20 years, who knows who'll win. Humanity will eventually lose to the top programs.

Clever programmers (human) will beat top players (human).

Mivo wrote:

Suji wrote:In 20 years, who knows who'll win. Humanity will eventually lose to the top programs.

Clever programmers (human) will beat top players (human).

I'm gonna start teaching my daughter go early so I can reach 9 dan .

Suji wrote: As of right now, chess engines are probably generally stronger than the best humans.

In 2009, a smartphone played at the level of a top grandmaster (~2900). Apparently they estimate best engines running on reasonable hardware are about 300-400 points stronger than the best humans. I think it's safe to say without a major breakthrough for us, the computers have claimed the peak of the mountain of chess. It will be interesting to see how long go holds out.

Mivo wrote:

Suji wrote:In 20 years, who knows who'll win. Humanity will eventually lose to the top programs.

Clever programmers (human) will beat top players (human).

Though I am human, it is interesting to ponder how my brain works. Am I really capable of any cleverness from within, or is it all a result of my brain having been programmed?

Kirby wrote:Though I am human, it is interesting to ponder how my brain works. Am I really capable of any cleverness from within, or is it all a result of my brain having been programmed?

And can depend on what you call "being programmed".

I suggest you look at descriptions of the type of AI that goes by the name of "neural net". These can learn (be trained) to perform a task but whether you would call this "being programmed" is another matter.

Although the hardware is very different, there are reasons to consider a "neural net" not entirely unlike our brains. At some level our "thinking" and what we have learned to do must be the result of connections between neurons reinforced or impeded. Interestingly, if you "damage" a nueral net the syptoms are not entirely unlike a stroke, especially relearning following a stroke (the neural net hasn't been physically damaged, no cells dead, just connections disrupted, so it can relearn).