Difference between revisions of "Talk:1002: Game AIs"
(Explaining the change of the computer Go skills) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
~ Could the description of tic-tac-toe link to xkcd 832 which explains the strategy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.173|162.158.152.173]] 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | ~ Could the description of tic-tac-toe link to xkcd 832 which explains the strategy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.173|162.158.152.173]] 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Saying that computers are very close to beating top humans as of January 2016 is misleading at best. There is not enough details in the BBC article, but it sounds like the Facebook program has about a 50% chance of beating 5-dan amateurs. In other words, it needs a 4-stone handicap (read: 4 free moves) to have a 50% chance to win against top-level amateurs, to say nothing about professionals. If a robotic team could have a 50% chance to beating Duke University at football (a skilled amateur team), would you say they were very close to being able to consistently beat the Patriots (a top-level professional)? If anything that underestimates the skill difference in Go, but the general point stands. | ||
Revision as of 23:13, 27 January 2016
Mornington Crescent would be impossible for a computer to play, let alone win... -- 188.29.119.251 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~) It is unclear which side of the line jeopard fall upon. Why so close to the line I wonder. DruidDriver (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Because of Watson (computer). (Anon) 13 August 2013 24.142.134.100 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Could the "CounterStrike" be referring instead to the computer game which can have computer-controlled players? --131.187.75.20 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, this is far more likely. 100.40.49.22 10:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
On the old blog version of this article, a comment mentioned Ken tweeting his method right after this comic was posted. He joked that they would asphyxiate themselves to actually see heaven for seven minutes. I don't know how to search for tweets, or if they even save them after so much time, but I thought it should be noted. 108.162.237.161 07:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree about the poker part. Reading someone's physical tells is just a small part of the game. Theoretically there is a Nash equilibrium for the game, the reason why it hasn't been found is that the amount of ways a deck can be shuffled is astronomical (even if you just count the cards that you use) and you also have to take into account the various betsizes. A near perfect solution for 2 player limit poker has been found by the Cepheus Poker Project: http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/.
~ Could the description of tic-tac-toe link to xkcd 832 which explains the strategy? 162.158.152.173 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Saying that computers are very close to beating top humans as of January 2016 is misleading at best. There is not enough details in the BBC article, but it sounds like the Facebook program has about a 50% chance of beating 5-dan amateurs. In other words, it needs a 4-stone handicap (read: 4 free moves) to have a 50% chance to win against top-level amateurs, to say nothing about professionals. If a robotic team could have a 50% chance to beating Duke University at football (a skilled amateur team), would you say they were very close to being able to consistently beat the Patriots (a top-level professional)? If anything that underestimates the skill difference in Go, but the general point stands.
