Lee Se-dol retires in face of AI...

[zenpawn]

I wonder if the relentless advance of the machine was a factor in Gary Kasparov's retirement?

My recollection is that it had a lot to do with the lack of a proper candidates system at the time to determine the next challenger.

Wikipedia: "He cited as the reason a lack of personal goals in the chess world (he commented when winning the Russian championship in 2004 that it had been the last major title he had never won outright) and expressed frustration at the failure to reunify the world championship."

[duncan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50573071


Despite his retirement, Lee Se-dol is due to play against another AI system in December.

He will play against HanDol, a program developed by South Korea's NHN Entertainment Corp, which has already defeated the country's top five Go players.

Lee will be given an advantage of two stones in the first game, but suspects he will lose.

"Even with a two-stone advantage, I feel like I will lose the first game to HanDol. These days, I don't follow Go news. I wanted to play comfortably against HanDol as I have already retired, though I will do my best," he said.

Any information about the handicap in games AFTER the first game? It's strange to state the terms of only the first game.

Maybe it is to find human's natural handicap level. If Lee Se-dol loses with two-stone , he will be given three-stone advantage. if he still loses then four stone until he wins.

[lkaufman]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50573071


Despite his retirement, Lee Se-dol is due to play against another AI system in December.

He will play against HanDol, a program developed by South Korea's NHN Entertainment Corp, which has already defeated the country's top five Go players.

Lee will be given an advantage of two stones in the first game, but suspects he will lose.

"Even with a two-stone advantage, I feel like I will lose the first game to HanDol. These days, I don't follow Go news. I wanted to play comfortably against HanDol as I have already retired, though I will do my best," he said.

Any information about the handicap in games AFTER the first game? It's strange to state the terms of only the first game.

Maybe it is to find human's natural handicap level. If Lee Se-dol loses with two-stone , he will be given three-stone advantage. if he still loses then four stone until he wins.

Is this just a guess or is that based on something you read? Although it sounds plausible if you are not a strong GO player, the difference of a single stone at pro level is huge so that it doesn't make sense to me. I mean that the program would have to beat him at least five to nothing at two stones to make a three stone game reasonable, I would say. I can easily imagine Lee losing at two stones, but if he lost at three stones that would be just incredible. It's roughly like the difference between Nakamura or MVL losing to Komodo at pawn and move vs losing at knight odds.

[duncan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50573071


Despite his retirement, Lee Se-dol is due to play against another AI system in December.

He will play against HanDol, a program developed by South Korea's NHN Entertainment Corp, which has already defeated the country's top five Go players.

Lee will be given an advantage of two stones in the first game, but suspects he will lose.

"Even with a two-stone advantage, I feel like I will lose the first game to HanDol. These days, I don't follow Go news. I wanted to play comfortably against HanDol as I have already retired, though I will do my best," he said.

Any information about the handicap in games AFTER the first game? It's strange to state the terms of only the first game.

Maybe it is to find human's natural handicap level. If Lee Se-dol loses with two-stone , he will be given three-stone advantage. if he still loses then four stone until he wins.

Is this just a guess or is that based on something you read? Although it sounds plausible if you are not a strong GO player, the difference of a single stone at pro level is huge so that it doesn't make sense to me. I mean that the program would have to beat him at least five to nothing at two stones to make a three stone game reasonable, I would say. I can easily imagine Lee losing at two stones, but if he lost at three stones that would be just incredible. It's roughly like the difference between Nakamura or MVL losing to Komodo at pawn and move vs losing at knight odds.

it was just a guess /wishful thinking. Thanks for pointing out the problem with it.