Alphazero news

[shrapnel]

I almost thought you had a genuine question and then I finished reading the post. Have fun!

By the way, are there any Plans in the Pipeline to commercialize AlphaZero ?

[matthewlai]

I almost thought you had a genuine question and then I finished reading the post. Have fun!

By the way, are there any Plans in the Pipeline to commercialize AlphaZero ?

Cannot talk about anything unannounced unfortunately!

[noobpwnftw]

I almost thought you had a genuine question and then I finished reading the post. Have fun!

By the way, are there any Plans in the Pipeline to commercialize AlphaZero ?

Cannot talk about anything unannounced unfortunately!

Couldn't have expected any more decent answer, I'm even glad that you don't beat around the bush.

[glennsamuel32]

@Matthew

IBM had a "whole series of GM's" training Deep Blue, for the Kasparov matchup.
AlphaGo had one Go player as a consultant, I think.

Has DeepMind used the services of any past or present GMs or IMs while creating A0 ?
If yes, could we know who ?

[duncan]

I almost thought you had a genuine question and then I finished reading the post. Have fun!

By the way, are there any Plans in the Pipeline to commercialize AlphaZero ?

Cannot talk about anything unannounced unfortunately!

Not sure if you can answer this but can you see a possibility in the future of alpha zero winning 100-0 against stockfish.?

[jorose]

Hi Matthew,

Nice to see you on the forum again!
I was a big fan of your probability based search. In fact, shortly after you published your thesis I read it and my only confusion was why you did it in chess and not Go, so I wrote my B.Sc. thesis doing exactly that. Naturally, I was wondering whether you got to try your probability based search further in AlphaZero or any other project?

With best regards,
Jonathan Rosenthal

[Thomas A. Anderson]

Matthew, thank you very much for participating in this thread! Everyone here should be grateful, that we are now getting the answers that were missing so much after releasing of the preliminary paper last December. Let's keep this discussion a technical one. With regards to this, I have a question, that came up while I was greedily digging through the papers. One number seems to be very odd to me: In the match against the SF with opening book (Brainfish), when AZ play black, it gets ~2/4 % wins against SF8/SF9, but ~18% wins when playing against the supposedly stronger Brainfish ?! Beside a docu bug, I can imagine two possible reasons: Either the number of games in this match has been very low or AZ discovered some poor opening book lines. The latter would be very interesting, especially how many and which lines are affected. While getting the game notation from these matches would be perfect, knowing how many games have been played in these tests would also be helpful.
Thanks again for your contribution, Matthew!

[noobpwnftw]

Over the course of 2 years since the first appearance there must have been numerous cases that people asked those "technical" questions, then I got the feeling that it is either they aren't going to answer you anyway or there is simply no study about them after all.

If they do care about academics then how they would come up with that half-decent paper in the first place? For most of the things you find useful actually appears in "supplementary data" which I guess was as per peer-reviewer's request. Makes the whole thing look like a giant advertisement sheet where you find all the specifics in a tiny "terms and conditions" block at the corner on the back of the page.

[hgm]

You don't seem to have much experience with publishing papers in Science (the journal). My experience is that it is very difficult even to get 'fully decent' papers published there.

[noobpwnftw]

Is it because people who wrote those 'fully decent' papers are not Google-branded?

But in my view a 'decent paper' is still a decent paper even if it is published on a morning newspaper.