TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can’t Win

322 点作者 relampago大约 11 年前

23 条评论

mark_l_watson大约 11 年前
That was a good read!<p>I wrote a Go playing program (&quot;Honinbo Warrior&quot;) in UCSD Pascal on my Apple II in the late 1970s. I made some money selling it commercially, but it was mostly a hobby.<p>Also in the 1970s, I had the privilege of playing the women&#x27;s world champion and also the national champion of South Korea. They both gave me huge handicaps, and still easily beat me - I am not a very strong player. Go really is a great game.<p>I bought Crazy Stone for my droid phone, and it really is a fine program.
评论 #7736471 未加载
btbuildem大约 11 年前
&gt; Caught between atheism and a crippling fear of death, Ray Kurzweil and other futurists feed this mischaracterization by trumpeting the impending technological apotheosis of humanity, their breathless idiocy echoing through popular media.<p>An unexpected jab in the second-last paragraph, seems the author has some strong opinions about AI. I wonder how he&#x27;d respond to Hawking&#x27;s recently newsworthy worries.
评论 #7733209 未加载
评论 #7734354 未加载
评论 #7733180 未加载
评论 #7733279 未加载
评论 #7733222 未加载
评论 #7733409 未加载
评论 #7733619 未加载
评论 #7733571 未加载
评论 #7733581 未加载
ogig大约 11 年前
Tangential curiosity I didn&#x27;t knew,<p>&gt; The first chess programs were written in the early fifties, one by Turing himself<p>When readed that I wondered in what computer could possibly that chess program ran. The amazing answer is: nowhere. Turing executed himself the orders of the program he wrote acting as cpu.<p><a href="http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Alan+Turing#Chess%20and%20Go" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;chessprogramming.wikispaces.com&#x2F;Alan+Turing#Chess%20a...</a>
评论 #7733146 未加载
评论 #7735567 未加载
评论 #7733165 未加载
captaincrowbar大约 11 年前
&quot;It is neither daring nor original to predict that within decades the world&#x27;s best chess player will be a machine ... Other games such as Go are presently less susceptible to machine analysis, a fact which sometimes provokes incredible displays of intellectual snobbery from Go players who like to denigrate chess as a child&#x27;s game. When in due course a machine also becomes the top Go player, such people will no doubt move to games like snakes-and-ladders where computers have no detectable advantage.&quot; -- David Langford (1979)
hyperpape大约 11 年前
One falsehood in the article is that Go is the only game where computers &quot;don&#x27;t stand a chance.&quot;<p>In fact, computers are substantially worse than the best humans at Go, Arimaa, Hex and maybe Havannah [1], to take some games that I know.<p>Arimaa is underexplored for both humans and computers, but there are several programmers working on it, and there is a modest prize available. Hex and Havannah are less explored, but they also have academic work done on them, and their human communities are also small, which means that we&#x27;re not getting the best humans can do.<p>[1] Havannah has a pretty good bot, Castro, but I think it&#x27;s still quite beatable.
评论 #7732532 未加载
评论 #7732590 未加载
评论 #7734592 未加载
评论 #7732685 未加载
ronaldx大约 11 年前
One additional issue for computers is that humans don&#x27;t play the game tree out to its conclusion - humans recognise winning and losing positions rather than playing a much longer (perhaps infinite) prove-out game.<p>A naive game theory strategy runs into a disasterous problem - the game tree is extensively longer than the 200 moves that a human will play.<p>So, a computer has to recognise a winning position, in a heuristic way, as well as the best players do. But, even as a total beginner, it&#x27;s easy to notice Go programs sometimes get the end-of-game scoring totally wrong.<p>Once you&#x27;ve overcome this first problem, you&#x27;ve reduced Go to &quot;just&quot; a 200-move game tree.
评论 #7732478 未加载
评论 #7732701 未加载
wtbob大约 11 年前
&gt; Crazy Stone and Nomitan are locked in a game of Go, the Eastern version of chess.<p>Ummm, the Japanese version of chess is…chess. It&#x27;s called shogi. There&#x27;s also a Chinese version of chess, xiangqi. There are, I believe, Vietnamese, Korean, Burmese and perhaps other varieties of chess. There&#x27;s certainly no common &#x27;Eastern version of chess&#x27; any more than there&#x27;s a common &#x27;Easter version of food.&#x27;<p>Go is a Japanese game of considerably greater complexity than chess.
评论 #7733916 未加载
评论 #7733936 未加载
评论 #7734800 未加载
评论 #7734038 未加载
conanbatt大约 11 年前
First of all, let me share that what Remi achieved with bots is incredible for Go players. When I was 16, the best bots out there were 6kyu, 5 ranks below the median rank for Go players.<p>Now, CrazyStone and Zen achieved 5d consistently on Go Servers, thats 5 ranks above the median. I have played Zen once, and I was utterly impressed by the quality of its play.<p>However, my game with the bot confirmed to me how bots WILL NOT beat professionals in a LONG LONG time. The bot excelled at tactical situations, and endgame. Maybe almost professional level. But the strategy is so weak, that the game turns into taking advantage in the first stage of the game, and then not losing it in the rest of it.<p>Until the computational power is strong enough to develop new openings, computers will always lag behind professionals in Go.
评论 #7733857 未加载
rockdoe大约 11 年前
This is one of the best mainstream articles on the subject I have ever seen.
mickeyp大约 11 年前
I&#x27;ve always wondered if it&#x27;s possible to inductively teach a computer to play Go using some form of machine learning by playing tens of thousands of games; perhaps games with annotations by humans following a simple format to guide the fledgling AI: &quot;Good move&quot;, &quot;Bad move&quot;, etc.<p>I used to play Go but stopped a long time ago. It was a game where you had to train your brain to recognise patterns and act on them.
评论 #7732926 未加载
评论 #7732870 未加载
评论 #7732668 未加载
评论 #7732655 未加载
RRRA大约 11 年前
My impression was that recently Go had fallen too...<p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/03/the-electronic-holy-war.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;online&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;elements&#x2F;2014&#x2F;03&#x2F;the-e...</a>
评论 #7735290 未加载
评论 #7735427 未加载
ivanca大约 11 年前
&gt;In fact, computers can’t “win” at anything, not until they can experience real joy in victory and sadness in defeat<p>Nothing farther from the truth, there are emotion-less people (alexithymia), and that doesn&#x27;t mean that they can&#x27;t win or lose.
nabla9大约 11 年前
Go is very complex.<p>How about game with much smaller search tree complexity first, like poker.<p>We don&#x27;t have computers winning professional poker players yet. They are quite good in heads up game (one to one), but full table is beyond them. The problem in poker is not the complexity of the game, it&#x27;s in learning how your opponent thinks and how they adjust to your play.
评论 #7732589 未加载
评论 #7733056 未加载
评论 #7732780 未加载
matthewwiese大约 11 年前
Loving the article so far, interesting read and makes me interested in reading more into the AI Go scene. Any HNers have links that would an excited learner make?<p>also<p>&gt; computer game theory genius Alfred Zobrist<p>I couldn&#x27;t help but laugh, because I read this an entirely different way than the author intended. I assume he just meant &#x27;game theory&#x27; without the computer prefix
评论 #7733546 未加载
coldcode大约 11 年前
The problem is inherently parallel but not obviously what each task should be doing. The experienced brain clearly can see the whole board and recognize what to do next but a computer can&#x27;t right now.<p>If I had more time this would be a lot of fun to work on. My approach would be to find some way to evolve a Go player. People clearly learn over time by playing a lot, which is basically programming their brain to recognize state and options.
thewarrior大约 11 年前
This only deepens the mystery of humans are able to do it. I really hope I live long enough to learn how human intelligence works.
评论 #7735864 未加载
S_A_P大约 11 年前
Isn&#x27;t this really mis-titled? &quot;Computers&quot; don&#x27;t win anything. The software is what cant &quot;win&quot; right now. Even though Im sure there is a lot of effort by various companies, academia and individuals into AI, is there really much development being put into beating a go grand master?
CurtMonash大约 11 年前
Some years back, I played a lot of Igowin on my home PC. At that time it was restricted to a 9x9 board.<p>I&#x27;m not a very good go player at all, but I actually had one game in which I gave it a 5 stone advantage and managed to beat it.<p>I should add that the current IOS Igowin seems to be decidedly better than I am, or than I was then.
shmageggy大约 11 年前
Does anyone have a link to more information about the percolated fractal and how it relates to Go positions? A quick googling wasn&#x27;t satisfying.
h1karu大约 11 年前
HIKARU!!!!!!!! NO GO!!!!<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-LHI1MC6Gc" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=E-LHI1MC6Gc</a>
michaelochurch大约 11 年前
<i>Caught between atheism and a crippling fear of death, Ray Kurzweil and other futurists feed this mischaracterization by trumpeting the impending technological apotheosis of humanity, their breathless idiocy echoing through popular media.</i><p>Wat. Why was this bit of out-of-place and mostly off-topic divisiveness dropped into an article about Go?<p>I don&#x27;t expect &quot;the Singularity&quot; to come in my lifetime, although smaller victories in &quot;AI&quot; have <i>already</i> proven themselves very useful; but let&#x27;s leave God out of AI debates. Whether there exists a God or gods (all &quot;atheism&quot; means is not believing in gods, and nothing either way about life after death), whether there is life after death, and what AI can do are orthogonal matters. The one that we can do something about, is the last of these.<p>For me, I&#x27;m a huge fan of AI and would love to see more research in that vein, but I don&#x27;t dread or fear my eventual death. I don&#x27;t intend to bring death on prematurely, but my curiosity has me looking forward to it. I certainly don&#x27;t expect to see a &quot;Singularity&quot; by 2045. That said, if I could program a computer to (say) cure cancer, or extend the human lifespan, I would do it in a heartbeat.<p>The stereotype that all AI researchers are &quot;atheists&quot; (as if that were a negative, or even a meaningful category) driven by a &quot;fear of death&quot; is (a) untrue, and (b) irrelevant. The great thing about science is that <i>it doesn&#x27;t matter</i> what your religious beliefs are, and it seems to work regardless of whether gods exist.
评论 #7735820 未加载
评论 #7734641 未加载
civilian大约 11 年前
Obviously we should teach Octopi how to play Go! <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7730808" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=7730808</a>
dlecorfec大约 11 年前
Damn game, because of it we are forced to use &quot;golang&quot; in search engines.
评论 #7732642 未加载
评论 #7732815 未加载
评论 #7735554 未加载
评论 #7733462 未加载