hi Ed...Rebel wrote:Yep.hgm wrote:That would make them die-hard liars. Lying by omission is still lying. It would be considered gross scientific fraud.Rebel wrote:All of the document can be true, except that a paragraph of how AZ learned SF8 first was left out.
If I remember correctly you are doing this stuff even longer than me and I would say this AZ thing (provided the conditions of the match meet the scientific standard) by far is the biggest breakthrough in computer chess ever. Would you not agree with me? And the paper doesn't meet the scientific standard. Hence I prefer (as announced in CTF) to stick to my DA role for the moment, discuss every detail, until everything is said, people might see that as strange but I feel it as an obligation.
The paper then. Reading it I would say the author(s) have a good understanding of computer chess in general, excellent understanding of the inner works of a chess program, some members of the deepmind team are (maybe even long time) members and lurk here because it is likely they know this is the place where the programmers meet and where their document will be scrutinized and yet I have to believe they don't know how to properly play a fair match? Is that stupidity? If not stupidity then what is it?
There are indeed reasons to believe (we discussed it) all 100 games were played from the start position, how stupid is that? And if not stupidity then what is it? Did they not know you either play from predefined opening lines or from an opening book? If only it were to avoid doubles. They did not know?
Did they not know by doing so they favored AZ?
From the paper we read AZ learned the most common openings and left SF in the dark, not allowing an opening book. They did not know that is unfair?
Of course they knew.
And yet they decided as they decided.
Why?
I consider the "why" question as one of the most important question in life. Everything happens for a reason.
~~~~~
I proposed a working model, learning an opponent from the start position, we even have a proven case (Mchess 5) from the past during the RGCC 96/97 period.
Not showing us all 100 games, the fixed 1 minute TC all fit well in this picture.
Adding up all things I am a sceptic for good reasons.
Terrible indeed.I was told that at the Free University (or was it UvA) only two thesis defenses in all of the history of the university had not resulted in granting the Ph.D. degree. In one of them the student appeared stone drunk. The other was for a thesis that discussed an experimental treatment of a certain kind of cancer, which by the 10 case studies treated in the thesis looked very good. And then during questioning, it turned out that the fact that 90 other patients submitted to this same treatment had died had been omitted...
it may well be like you said they perfectly knew...
one thought...
this may have been the 'optimal conditions' so that alphazero would not lose one single game...
and still make it look plausible...
and as far as the chess programming community...
their 'not having one single loss' no matter how 'odd' the conditions...
is what their only conern was...
if it isolated the computer chess community...
then so be it...
pretty ruthless and cut-throat...
but, obviously they didn't care...
only that alphzero did not have any losses...
and the 'setup' they used did the trick...