DOCSLIB.ORG

How the Computer Beat the Go Player

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How the Computer Beat the Go Player CONSCIOUSNESS REDUX MACHINE LEARNING How the Computer Beat the Go Player As a leading go player falls to a machine, artificial intelligence takes a decisive step on the road to overtaking the natural variety God moves the player, he in turn, the piece. But what god beyond God begins the round of dust and time and sleep and agonies? —Jorge Luis Borges, from “Chess,” 1960 The victory in March of the computer program AlphaGo over one of the world’s top handful of go players marks the high- est accomplishment to date for the bur- era is over, and a new one has begun. The reigning world chess champion Garry geoning field of machine learning and methods underlying AlphaGo, and its Kasparov. In a six-game match played in intelligence. The computer beat Lee Se- recent victory, have startling implications 1996, Kaspa rov prevailed against Deep dol at go, a very old and traditional board for the future of machine intelligence. Blue by three wins, two draws and one game, at a highly publicized tournament loss but lost a year later in a historic re- in Seoul in a 4–1 rout. With this defeat, Coming Out of Nowhere match 3.5 to 2.5. (Scoring rules permit ) computers have bettered people in the The ascent of AlphaGo to the top of the half points in the case of a draw.) last of the classical board games, this one go world has been stunning and quite dis- Chess is a classic game of strategy, Koch known for its depth and simplicity. An tinct from the trajectory of machines similar to tic-tac-toe (noughts and cross- CABE ( playing chess. Over a period of more than es), checkers (draughts), Reversi (Othel- C a decade a dedicated team of hardware lo), backgammon and go, in which play- BY CHRISTOF KOCH and software engineers hired by IBM ers take turns placing or moving pieces. ); SEAN M built and programmed a special-purpose Unlike games where players see only Christof Koch is president supercomputer named Deep Blue that did their own cards and all discarded cards, illustration and chief scientific officer one thing and one thing only: play chess players have full access to relevant infor- of the Allen Institute for Brain by evaluating 200 million board positions mation, with chance playing no role. Science in Seattle. He serves on Scientific American Mind’ s per second. In a widely expected develop- The rules of go are considerably sim- board of advisers. ment, the IBM team challenged then pler than those of chess. Black and White RICHIE POPE ( 20 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND JULY/AUGUst 2016 Exploring the riddle of our existence sides each have access to a bowl of black Its software was developed by a 20-per- ing the number of moves for a particular and white stones, and each places one in son team under erstwhile chess child board position. It does so by learning to turn on a 19-by-19 grid. Once placed, prodigy and neuroscientist turned AI pi- choose a small range of good moves for stones do not move. The intent of the oneer Demis Hassabis. (His London- that position. A “value network” then es- game, originating in China more than based DeepMind Technologies was ac- timates how likely a given board position 2,500 years ago, is to completely sur- quired in 2014 by Google.) Most intrigu- will lead to a win without chasing down round opposite stones. Such encircled ingly, the Nature article revealed that every node of the search tree. The policy stones are considered captured and are AlphaGo had played against the winner network generates possible moves that the removed from the board. Out of this of the European go championship, Fan value network then judges on their likeli- sheer simplicity, great beauty arises— Hui, in October 2015 and won 5 to 0 hood to vanquish the opponent. These are complex battles between Black and without handicapping the human player, processed using a technique called a Mon- White armies that span from the corners an unheard-of event. What is noteworthy te Carlo tree search, which can lead to op- to the center of the board. is that AlphaGo’s algorithms do not con- timal behavior even if only a tiny fraction Strictly logical games, such as chess tain any genuinely novel insights or of the complete game tree is explored. and go, can be characterized by how breakthroughs. The software combines A Monte Carlo tree search by itself many possible positions can arise—a good old-fashioned neural network algo- was not good enough for these programs measure that defines their complexity. rithms and machine-learning techniques to compete at the world-class level. That Depending on the phase of the game, players must pick one out of a small num- ber of possible moves. A typical chess game may have 10120 possible moves, a THE ALPHAGO SOFTWARE IMPROVED BY huge number, considering there are only PLAYING CEASELESSLY AGAINST ITSELF. about 1080 atoms in the entire observable universe of galaxies, stars, planets, dogs, trees, people. But go’s complexity is much bigger—at 10360 possible moves. This is a with superb software engineering run- required giving AlphaGo the ability to number beyond imagination and renders ning on powerful but fairly standard learn, initially by exposing it to previous- any thought of exhaustively evaluating hardware—48 central processing units ly played games of professional go play- all possible moves utterly unrealistic. (CPUs) augmented by eight graphics pro- ers and subsequently by enabling the pro- Given this virtually illimitable com- cessing units (GPUs) developed to render gram to play millions of games against plexity, go is, much more than chess, 3-D graphics for the gaming communities itself, continuously improving its per­­­ about recognizing patterns that arise and exquisitely powered for running cer- formance in the process. when clutches of stones surround empty tain mathematical operations. In the first stage, a 13-layer policy spaces. Players perceive, consciously or At the heart of the computations are neural network started as a blank slate— not, relationships among groups of neural networks, distant descendants of with no prior exposure to go. It was then stones and talk about such seemingly neuronal circuits operating in biological trained on 30 million board positions fuzzy concepts as “light” and “heavy” brains. Multiple layers of artificial neu- from 160,000 real-life games taken from shapes of stones and aji, meaning latent rons process the input—the positions of a go database. That number represents possibilities. Such concepts, however, are stones on the 19-by-19 go board—and far more games than any professional much harder to capture algorithmically derive increasingly more abstract repre- player would encounter in a lifetime. than the formal rules of the game. Ac- sentations of various aspects of the game Each board position was paired with the cordingly, computer go programs strug- using something called convolutional actual move chosen by the player (which gled compared with their chess counter- networks. This same technology has is why this technique is called supervised parts, and none had ever beat a profes- made possible recent breakout perfor- learning), and the connections among the sional human under regular tournament mances in automatic image recogni- simulated neurons in the network were conditions. Such an event was prognos- tion—labeling, for example, all images adjusted using so-called deep-machine- ticated to be at least a decade away. posted to Facebook. learning techniques to make the network And then AlphaGo burst into public For any particular board position, two more likely to pick the better move the consciousness via an article in one of the neural networks operate in tandem to op- next time. The network was then tested world’s most respected science maga- timize performance. A “policy network” by giving it a board position from a game zines, Nature, on January 28 of this year. reduces the breadth of the game by limit- it had previously never seen. It accurate- MIND.SCIENTIFICAMERICAN.COM SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND 21 CONSCIOUSNESS REDUX ly, though far from perfectly, predicted ball, Stargunner, Robot Tank, Road In a third and final stage of training, the move that the professional player Runner, Pong, Space Invaders, Ms. Pac- the value network that estimates how had picked. Man, Alien and Montezuma’s Revenge. likely a given board position will lead to In a second stage, the policy network (It was a sign of things to come: atari is a win is trained using 30 million self- trained itself using reinforcement learn- a Japanese go term, signifying the immi- generated positions that the policy net- ing. This technique is a lasting legacy of nent capture of one or more stones.) work chose. It is this feature of self-play, behaviorism—a school of thought domi- Each time it played, the DeepMind impossible for humans to replicate (be- nant in psychology and biology in the first network “saw” the same video-game cause it would require the player’s mind half of the 20th century. It professes the screen, including the current score, that to split itself into two independent idea that organisms—from worms, flies any human player would see. The net- “minds”) that enables the algorithm to and sea slugs to rats and people—learn by work’s output was a command to the joy- relentlessly improve. relating a particular action to specific stick to move the cursor on the screen. A peculiarity of AlphaGo is that it stimuli that preceded it. As they do this Following the diktat of the programmer will pick a strategy that maximizes over and over again, the organisms build to maximize the game score, the algo- the probability of winning regardless up an association between stimulus and rithm did so and figured out the rules of of by how much.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chinese Health App Arrives Access to a Large Population Used to Sharing Data Could Give Icarbonx an Edge Over Rivals
    NEWS IN FOCUS ASTROPHYSICS Legendary CHEMISTRY Deceptive spice POLITICS Scientists spy ECOLOGY New Zealand Arecibo telescope faces molecule offers cautionary chance to green UK plans to kill off all uncertain future p.143 tale p.144 after Brexit p.145 invasive predators p.148 ICARBONX Jun Wang, founder of digital biotechnology firm iCarbonX, showcases the Meum app that will use reams of health data to provide customized medical advice. BIOTECHNOLOGY Chinese health app arrives Access to a large population used to sharing data could give iCarbonX an edge over rivals. BY DAVID CYRANOSKI, SHENZHEN medical advice directly to consumers through another $400 million had been invested in the an app. alliance members, but he declined to name the ne of China’s most intriguing biotech- The announcement was a long-anticipated source. Wang also demonstrated the smart- nology companies has fleshed out an debut for iCarbonX, which Wang founded phone app, called Meum after the Latin for earlier quixotic promise to use artificial in October 2015 shortly after he left his lead- ‘my’, that customers would use to enter data Ointelligence (AI) to revolutionize health care. ership position at China’s genomics pow- and receive advice. The Shenzhen firm iCarbonX has formed erhouse, BGI, also in Shenzhen. The firm As well as Google, IBM and various smaller an ambitious alliance with seven technology has now raised more than US$600 million in companies, such as Arivale of Seattle, Wash- companies from around the world that special- investment — this contrasts with the tens of ington, are working on similar technology. But ize in gathering different types of health-care millions that most of its rivals are thought Wang says that the iCarbonX alliance will be data, said the company’s founder, Jun Wang, to have invested (although several big play- able to collect data more cheaply and quickly.
    [Show full text]
  • CSC321 Lecture 23: Go
    CSC321 Lecture 23: Go Roger Grosse Roger Grosse CSC321 Lecture 23: Go 1 / 22 Final Exam Monday, April 24, 7-10pm A-O: NR 25 P-Z: ZZ VLAD Covers all lectures, tutorials, homeworks, and programming assignments 1/3 from the first half, 2/3 from the second half If there's a question on this lecture, it will be easy Emphasis on concepts covered in multiple of the above Similar in format and difficulty to the midterm, but about 3x longer Practice exams will be posted Roger Grosse CSC321 Lecture 23: Go 2 / 22 Overview Most of the problem domains we've discussed so far were natural application areas for deep learning (e.g. vision, language) We know they can be done on a neural architecture (i.e. the human brain) The predictions are inherently ambiguous, so we need to find statistical structure Board games are a classic AI domain which relied heavily on sophisticated search techniques with a little bit of machine learning Full observations, deterministic environment | why would we need uncertainty? This lecture is about AlphaGo, DeepMind's Go playing system which took the world by storm in 2016 by defeating the human Go champion Lee Sedol Roger Grosse CSC321 Lecture 23: Go 3 / 22 Overview Some milestones in computer game playing: 1949 | Claude Shannon proposes the idea of game tree search, explaining how games could be solved algorithmically in principle 1951 | Alan Turing writes a chess program that he executes by hand 1956 | Arthur Samuel writes a program that plays checkers better than he does 1968 | An algorithm defeats human novices at Go 1992
    [Show full text]
  • Fml-Based Dynamic Assessment Agent for Human-Machine Cooperative System on Game of Go
    Accepted for publication in International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems in July, 2017 FML-BASED DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT AGENT FOR HUMAN-MACHINE COOPERATIVE SYSTEM ON GAME OF GO CHANG-SHING LEE* MEI-HUI WANG, SHENG-CHI YANG Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan *[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] PI-HSIA HUNG, SU-WEI LIN Department of Education, National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan [email protected], [email protected] NAN SHUO, NAOYUKI KUBOTA Dept. of System Design, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan [email protected], [email protected] CHUN-HSUN CHOU, PING-CHIANG CHOU Haifong Weiqi Academy, Taiwan [email protected], [email protected] CHIA-HSIU KAO Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan [email protected] Received (received date) Revised (revised date) Accepted (accepted date) In this paper, we demonstrate the application of Fuzzy Markup Language (FML) to construct an FML- based Dynamic Assessment Agent (FDAA), and we present an FML-based Human–Machine Cooperative System (FHMCS) for the game of Go. The proposed FDAA comprises an intelligent decision-making and learning mechanism, an intelligent game bot, a proximal development agent, and an intelligent agent. The intelligent game bot is based on the open-source code of Facebook’s Darkforest, and it features a representational state transfer application programming interface mechanism. The proximal development agent contains a dynamic assessment mechanism, a GoSocket mechanism, and an FML engine with a fuzzy knowledge base and rule base.
    [Show full text]
  • Residual Networks for Computer Go Tristan Cazenave
    Residual Networks for Computer Go Tristan Cazenave To cite this version: Tristan Cazenave. Residual Networks for Computer Go. IEEE Transactions on Games, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2018, 10 (1), 10.1109/TCIAIG.2017.2681042. hal-02098330 HAL Id: hal-02098330 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02098330 Submitted on 12 Apr 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. IEEE TCIAIG 1 Residual Networks for Computer Go Tristan Cazenave Universite´ Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University, CNRS, LAMSADE, 75016 PARIS, FRANCE Deep Learning for the game of Go recently had a tremendous success with the victory of AlphaGo against Lee Sedol in March 2016. We propose to use residual networks so as to improve the training of a policy network for computer Go. Training is faster than with usual convolutional networks and residual networks achieve high accuracy on our test set and a 4 dan level. Index Terms—Deep Learning, Computer Go, Residual Networks. I. INTRODUCTION Input EEP Learning for the game of Go with convolutional D neural networks has been addressed by Clark and Storkey [1]. It has been further improved by using larger networks [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Achieving Master Level Play in 9X9 Computer Go
    Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2008) Achieving Master Level Play in 9 9 Computer Go × Sylvain Gelly∗ David Silver† Univ. Paris Sud, LRI, CNRS, INRIA, France University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Abstract simulated, using self-play, starting from the current position. Each position in the search tree is evaluated by the average The UCT algorithm uses Monte-Carlo simulation to estimate outcome of all simulated games that pass through that po- the value of states in a search tree from the current state. However, the first time a state is encountered, UCT has no sition. The search tree is used to guide simulations along knowledge, and is unable to generalise from previous expe- promising paths. This results in a highly selective search rience. We describe two extensions that address these weak- that is grounded in simulated experience, rather than an ex- nesses. Our first algorithm, heuristic UCT, incorporates prior ternal heuristic. Programs using UCT search have outper- knowledge in the form of a value function. The value function formed all previous Computer Go programs (Coulom 2006; can be learned offline, using a linear combination of a million Gelly et al. 2006). binary features, with weights trained by temporal-difference Monte-Carlo tree search algorithms suffer from two learning. Our second algorithm, UCT–RAVE, forms a rapid sources of inefficiency. First, when a position is encoun- online generalisation based on the value of moves. We ap- tered for the first time, no knowledge is available to guide plied our algorithms to the domain of 9 9 Computer Go, the search.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Go: from the Beginnings to Alphago Martin Müller, University of Alberta
    Computer Go: from the Beginnings to AlphaGo Martin Müller, University of Alberta 2017 Outline of the Talk ✤ Game of Go ✤ Short history - Computer Go from the beginnings to AlphaGo ✤ The science behind AlphaGo ✤ The legacy of AlphaGo The Game of Go Go ✤ Classic two-player board game ✤ Invented in China thousands of years ago ✤ Simple rules, complex strategy ✤ Played by millions ✤ Hundreds of top experts - professional players ✤ Until 2016, computers weaker than humans Go Rules ✤ Start with empty board ✤ Place stone of your own color ✤ Goal: surround empty points or opponent - capture ✤ Win: control more than half the board Final score, 9x9 board ✤ Komi: first player advantage Measuring Go Strength ✤ People in Europe and America use the traditional Japanese ranking system ✤ Kyu (student) and Dan (master) levels ✤ Separate Dan ranks for professional players ✤ Kyu grades go down from 30 (absolute beginner) to 1 (best) ✤ Dan grades go up from 1 (weakest) to about 6 ✤ There is also a numerical (Elo) system, e.g. 2500 = 5 Dan Short History of Computer Go Computer Go History - Beginnings ✤ 1960’s: initial ideas, designs on paper ✤ 1970’s: first serious program - Reitman & Wilcox ✤ Interviews with strong human players ✤ Try to build a model of human decision-making ✤ Level: “advanced beginner”, 15-20 kyu ✤ One game costs thousands of dollars in computer time 1980-89 The Arrival of PC ✤ From 1980: PC (personal computers) arrive ✤ Many people get cheap access to computers ✤ Many start writing Go programs ✤ First competitions, Computer Olympiad, Ing Cup ✤ Level 10-15 kyu 1990-2005: Slow Progress ✤ Slow progress, commercial successes ✤ 1990 Ing Cup in Beijing ✤ 1993 Ing Cup in Chengdu ✤ Top programs Handtalk (Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Reinforcement Learning of Local Shape in the Game of Go
    Reinforcement Learning of Local Shape in the Game of Go David Silver, Richard Sutton, and Martin Muller¨ Department of Computing Science University of Alberta Edmonton, Canada T6G 2E8 {silver, sutton, mmueller}@cs.ualberta.ca Abstract effective. They are fast to compute; easy to interpret, modify and debug; and they have good convergence properties. We explore an application to the game of Go of Secondly, weights are trained by temporal difference learn- a reinforcement learning approach based on a lin- ing and self-play. The world champion Checkers program ear evaluation function and large numbers of bi- Chinook was hand-tuned by expert players over 5 years. nary features. This strategy has proved effective When weights were trained instead by self-play using a tem- in game playing programs and other reinforcement poral difference learning algorithm, the program equalled learning applications. We apply this strategy to Go the performance of the original version [7]. A similar ap- by creating over a million features based on tem- proach attained master level play in Chess [1]. TD-Gammon plates for small fragments of the board, and then achieved world class Backgammon performance after train- use temporal difference learning and self-play. This ingbyTD(0)andself-play[13]. A program trained by method identifies hundreds of low level shapes with TD(λ) and self-play outperformed an expert, hand-tuned ver- recognisable significance to expert Go players, and sion at the card game Hearts [11]. Experience generated provides quantitive estimates of their values. We by self-play was also used to train the weights of the world analyse the relative contributions to performance of champion Othello and Scrabble programs, using least squares templates of different types and sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • Weiqi, Baduk): a Beautiful Game
    Go (Weiqi, Baduk): A Beautiful Game Description Go is a strategy board game originating from China more than two thousand years ago. Though its rules are simple, the game is intractably complex; a top professional can easily defeat the best supercomputers today. It was considered one of the four essential skills of a Chinese scholar. The game spread to Korea and Japan, has flourished in East Asia, and is becoming more well-known in the West. Today, Go is enjoyed by more than 40 million players in the world. Objectives Students will learn the rules of go and become able to play at an intermediate level. They will also understand the game in a historical and/or mathematical context. We hope (but do not require) that students will be able to play at a single-digit kyu level (1k-9k). Students will also learn something significant from one of the following (or both): ◦ The culture and history of go, including its origins, historical figure, and presence in East Asia and the western world. ◦ Some mathematical results of go, including a treatment of go using combinatorial game theory. This will offer enough flexibility for students of all majors. Prerequisites None. We expect all students to be able to understand the course material. The course is designed to suit students of all majors. This course is not designed for dan-level players. We will not allow dan-level players to take this course. Course Format This course will be taught by Joshua Wu in both lecture and interactive formats. We hope to emphasize student participation.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to Play the Game of Go
    Learning to Play the Game of Go James Foulds October 17, 2006 Abstract The problem of creating a successful artificial intelligence game playing program for the game of Go represents an important milestone in the history of computer science, and provides an interesting domain for the development of both new and existing problem-solving methods. In particular, the problem of Go can be used as a benchmark for machine learning techniques. Most commercial Go playing programs use rule-based expert systems, re- lying heavily on manually entered domain knowledge. Due to the complexity of strategy possible in the game, these programs can only play at an amateur level of skill. A more recent approach is to apply machine learning to the prob- lem. Machine learning-based Go playing systems are currently weaker than the rule-based programs, but this is still an active area of research. This project compares the performance of an extensive set of supervised machine learning algorithms in the context of learning from a set of features generated from the common fate graph – a graph representation of a Go playing board. The method is applied to a collection of life-and-death problems and to 9 × 9 games, using a variety of learning algorithms. A comparative study is performed to determine the effectiveness of each learning algorithm in this context. Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Background 4 2.1 Go................................... 4 2.1.1 DescriptionoftheGame. 5 2.1.2 TheHistoryofGo ...................... 6 2.1.3 Elementary Strategy . 7 2.1.4 Player Rankings and Handicaps . 7 2.1.5 Tsumego ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Human Vs. Computer Go: Review and Prospect
    This article is accepted and will be published in IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine in August 2016 Human vs. Computer Go: Review and Prospect Chang-Shing Lee*, Mei-Hui Wang Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National University of Tainan, TAIWAN Shi-Jim Yen Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Dong Hwa University, TAIWAN Ting-Han Wei, I-Chen Wu Department of Computer Science, National Chiao Tung University, TAIWAN Ping-Chiang Chou, Chun-Hsun Chou Taiwan Go Association, TAIWAN Ming-Wan Wang Nihon Ki-in Go Institute, JAPAN Tai-Hsiung Yang Haifong Weiqi Academy, TAIWAN Abstract The Google DeepMind challenge match in March 2016 was a historic achievement for computer Go development. This article discusses the development of computational intelligence (CI) and its relative strength in comparison with human intelligence for the game of Go. We first summarize the milestones achieved for computer Go from 1998 to 2016. Then, the computer Go programs that have participated in previous IEEE CIS competitions as well as methods and techniques used in AlphaGo are briefly introduced. Commentaries from three high-level professional Go players on the five AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol games are also included. We conclude that AlphaGo beating Lee Sedol is a huge achievement in artificial intelligence (AI) based largely on CI methods. In the future, powerful computer Go programs such as AlphaGo are expected to be instrumental in promoting Go education and AI real-world applications. I. Computer Go Competitions The IEEE Computational Intelligence Society (CIS) has funded human vs. computer Go competitions in IEEE CIS flagship conferences since 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Go: an AI Oriented Survey
    Computer Go: an AI Oriented Survey Bruno Bouzy Université Paris 5, UFR de mathématiques et d'informatique, C.R.I.P.5, 45, rue des Saints-Pères 75270 Paris Cedex 06 France tel: (33) (0)1 44 55 35 58, fax: (33) (0)1 44 55 35 35 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~bouzy/ Tristan Cazenave Université Paris 8, Département Informatique, Laboratoire IA 2, rue de la Liberté 93526 Saint-Denis Cedex France e-mail: [email protected] http://www.ai.univ-paris8.fr/~cazenave/ Abstract Since the beginning of AI, mind games have been studied as relevant application fields. Nowadays, some programs are better than human players in most classical games. Their results highlight the efficiency of AI methods that are now quite standard. Such methods are very useful to Go programs, but they do not enable a strong Go program to be built. The problems related to Computer Go require new AI problem solving methods. Given the great number of problems and the diversity of possible solutions, Computer Go is an attractive research domain for AI. Prospective methods of programming the game of Go will probably be of interest in other domains as well. The goal of this paper is to present Computer Go by showing the links between existing studies on Computer Go and different AI related domains: evaluation function, heuristic search, machine learning, automatic knowledge generation, mathematical morphology and cognitive science. In addition, this paper describes both the practical aspects of Go programming, such as program optimization, and various theoretical aspects such as combinatorial game theory, mathematical morphology, and Monte- Carlo methods.
    [Show full text]
  • When Are We Done with Games?
    When Are We Done with Games? Niels Justesen Michael S. Debus Sebastian Risi IT University of Copenhagen IT University of Copenhagen IT University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark Copenhagen, Denmark Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—From an early point, games have been promoted designed to erase particular elements of unfairness within the as important challenges within the research field of Artificial game, the players, or their environments. Intelligence (AI). Recent developments in machine learning have We take a black-box approach that ignores some dimensions allowed a few AI systems to win against top professionals in even the most challenging video games, including Dota 2 and of fairness such as learning speed and prior knowledge, StarCraft. It thus may seem that AI has now achieved all of focusing only on perceptual and motoric fairness. Additionally, the long-standing goals that were set forth by the research we introduce the notions of game extrinsic factors, such as the community. In this paper, we introduce a black box approach competition format and rules, and game intrinsic factors, such that provides a pragmatic way of evaluating the fairness of AI vs. as different mechanical systems and configurations within one human competitions, by only considering motoric and perceptual fairness on the competitors’ side. Additionally, we introduce the game. We apply these terms to critically review the aforemen- notion of extrinsic and intrinsic factors of a game competition and tioned AI achievements and observe that game extrinsic factors apply these to discuss and compare the competitions in relation are rarely discussed in this context, and that game intrinsic to human vs.
    [Show full text]