[lycier]

hrothgar, on 2016-March-09, 09:56, said:

So, looks like Lee Se-Dol lost the first game.

Better hope that he wins three out of the next four...

mgoetze, on 2016-March-09, 14:21, said:

After watching the first game, I don't think that's going to happen. To my amateur eye, it seemed like AlphaGo was playing a bit slack in the endgame because it was confident of winning, which is to say that it was not really a close game.

It's miraculous! AI unexpectedly won victory over him twice at present !
After Li se-dol lost the game ,China's Go world champion KeJie said, " even if AlphaGo can overcome lee se-dol, could not overcome him ".
In another word, if AlphaGo only wins Ke Jie, Human beings will throw in the towel.Why didn't AlphaGo choose China's Go champion Ke Jie?

[lycier]

People's Daily(China) reviews that the dignity of thought belongs only to human beings.

[Zelandakh]

lycier, on 2016-March-10, 23:00, said:

Why didn't AlphaGo choose China's Go champion Ke Jie?

I am sure the people behind AlphaGo would love to take him on. Ke Jie himself might be a little more reluctant having more to lose from such an encounter. You can be sure he is studying the computer's play very closely looking for weaknesses.

[jogs]

steve2005, on 2016-January-28, 18:20, said:

Chess is suited to computers. Go also but is more difficult.
The problem with bridge is you don't know where all the cards are. Whereas is chess and go you know where all the pieces are.
Bidding has improved considerably but still has a lot to be desired. When chess programs were starting to challenge masters, bridge programs were no better than beginners at bidding.

Chess and go are deterministic/perfect information games. The location of pieces are known.

Bridge is a non-deterministic/imperfect information game. Bridge first need to develop a better method to evaluate the fit of the partnership hands. How many tricks can the partnership make in each strain?

[billw55]

I see no reason to expect alphago to achieve a different result against Ke Jie than against Lee Sedol.

It is true that bridge includes some aspects that chess and go do not. Most notably, incomplete information and partnership communication. Against this, the game space is just much smaller: fewer decisions overall, fewer legal alternatives per decision, and fewer reasonable alternatives per decision.

I expect that bridge could be conquered by computers as soon as someone is willing to invest enough to accomplish it. The funny thing is, in bridge it will be harder to diagnose success. There is substantial variance/randomness, and even a theoretically perfect team will lose often to a very strong, but imperfect, team. Even hundreds of boards as at the BB might not resolve the difference consistently.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-March-11, 10:38, said:

I expect that bridge could be conquered by computers as soon as someone is willing to invest enough to accomplish it. The funny thing is, in bridge it will be harder to diagnose success. There is substantial variance/randomness, and even a theoretically perfect team will lose often to a very strong, but imperfect, team. Even hundreds of boards as at the BB might not resolve the difference consistently.

If it were to win a long match by a small amount, that would not be considered decisive. But if it wins a 128-board match by 30 IMPs or more, I think that would be quite significant.

The best way to test it would be to have a team of computers competing in a full week-long event like BB or Spingold. So it wouldn't have to win just one long match, it would have to win several of them. There are occasional unexpected upsets in a few matches of these events, but any team that makes it as far as the QF is almost always made up of players who are all considered the cream of the crop. There are rarely any surprising teams there.

So I think the way to find out if bridge has been "beaten" is for them to play one of these premiere events from start to finish and win it.

[jogs]

barmar, on 2016-March-11, 12:07, said:

If it were to win a long match by a small amount, that would not be considered decisive. But if it wins a 128-board match by 30 IMPs or more, I think that would be quite significant.

Do you appreciate the amount luck plays in bridge results? The standard deviation of a board is around 5 imps depending on relative vulnerability. In a 128 board match the s.d. is about 55 imps. Assuming the world champs are 1 imp per board better, the opponent team has about a 2-3% chance of winning providing they don't choke. Computers don't choke.

[lycier]

Today AlphaGo beated Lee se-dol third time!

If AI can beat Go game thoroughly, I am afraid that the next target whould be the bridge.
let's think about the future of the bridge :

1- AI team always be a world champion.

2- If the AI team doesn't take part in the competition, the human can only hold world bridge second championship.

3- All the bridge Champions will shut up, AI master will teach them " How To Play The Bridge". They will be living in poverty since AI will rob their bread and butter.

4- All the books of the bridge champions will become a pile of waste paper. The books of AI bidding system writtern by AI will become a best-seller.

5- No director. No cheater. AI have great ability to solve almost of the problems on the bridge game.

6- If AI come to BBO,I believe AI will design a " self design " function " - all the self design of BBOers will adopt the manner of self research, self design and self debugging, do as BBOers like, and never need BBO to design. On the BBO forums, AI will become moderators, it can teach all the BBFers " What is the correct auction".

If AI be SkyNet in the future, where will we go? How terrible! Would you still like AI?

[Antrax]

3. Teaching bridge isn't about telling you the right answers to everything. We're a long way from systems that can explain themselves in a human-understandable format.
4. I'm pretty sure some HUM methods are more efficient and are already banned. No reason to expect the AI to generate something that will be ACBL-legal. Also, knowing how to play a system != knowing how to design a system, though I'm sure you could solve the second one with today's technology too.
5. ??? Do you expect AIs to come up with some revolutionary way to handle revokes, mechanical errors and UI?
6. Computers can't even tell you whether a computer program will run forever or not. Why do you expect them to be able to design themselves?

[sakuragi]

BBO should implement 4 humans vs 4 bots team match, when we are yet capable of winning, before it is too late ... lol

[nullve]

billw55, on 2016-March-11, 10:38, said:

It is true that bridge includes some aspects that chess and go do not. Most notably, incomplete information and partnership communication. Against this, the game space is just much smaller: fewer decisions overall, fewer legal alternatives per decision, and fewer reasonable alternatives per decision.

But which game are we talking about? If it's the game that begins only after systems have been designed and agreed upon, then the game tree is finite, just like in chess. If it's the game that starts with system design, then the game tree is infinite, because e.g. for each p in the real interval [0,1] a pair could choose a system where hands of type T were opened 1C and 1D with probability p and 1-p, respectively.

[Fluffy]

Even if an AI plays perfectly and has a perfectly designed system they would still be underdogs to win BB. They would probably win the RR by a large margin, but then the KO would be a big problem.

[mike777]

Fluffy, on 2016-March-12, 16:04, said:

Even if an AI plays perfectly and has a perfectly designed system they would still be underdogs to win BB. They would probably win the RR by a large margin, but then the KO would be a big problem.

If, I mean If, AI plays perfectly they will win the Bermuda bowl today, AI will win even if they play less than perfect, if not today then before 2050.

btw I understand AI has won the first two games out of 5

[yunling]

There was a match in 2005 between Jack and some top Dutch pairs
http://www.jackbridge.com/eperhum.htm

But I can't find any report since.
Probably it is because computers find it very hard to understand humans' alerts.

[lycier]

The fouth round, Li se-dol wins, congrats !
Lee se-dol standing on the intersection of the present and future ,just like a solemn and stirring warriors !

[jogs]

lycier, on 2016-March-13, 03:17, said:

The fouth round, Li se-dol wins, congrats !
Lee se-dol standing on the intersection of the present and future ,just like a solemn and stirring warriors !

Is that a chess clock? Lee was down to 1 minute left. A human opponent would have tried to force Lee to lose on time.

[mgoetze]

jogs, on 2016-March-13, 13:29, said:

Is that a chess clock? Lee was down to 1 minute left. A human opponent would have tried to force Lee to lose on time.

Leaving aside some minor details, the players essentially had one minute per move after the main time (2 hours) expired. People don't lose on time when they're ahead.

[lycier]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-11, 07:31, said:

I am sure the people behind AlphaGo would love to take him on. Ke Jie himself might be a little more reluctant having more to lose from such an encounter. You can be sure he is studying the computer's play very closely looking for weaknesses.

I am sure that Ke Jie is looking forward to challenge AlphaGo.

[mike777]

First three=AI
Forth=Human: Human says they won by playing unorthodox.
--------

Many Go players complain Human is old and weak player and should retire.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2016-March-14, 22:49, said:

Human says they won by playing unorthodox.

WHich is precisely how it worked for a while in chess. Computers had difficulty with very quiet positions with few tactical possibilities. Once strong GMs got on board in closing this hole, computers were able to hold their own in those positions too. Having exposed this weakness now though, Lee has perhaps paved the way for other human Go players to best AlphaGo in the short term. It takes time for a program to be re-worked and until that happens there is a window for Ke and the others. It should be clear from the chess history that that will not last though. It should also be clear that players that use the tactic discovered by Lee in future matches to beat AlphaGo are not stronger - the key is finding the weakness and then having enough ability to exploit it.