
The Future of Go Summit – Ke Jie vs. AlphaGo - tvvocold
https://events.google.com/alphago2017/
======
loup-vaillant
Some commenters on Twitter are still saying 0.5 points is "very close".

It would be if both players were human: in human play, score differences tend
to correlate with differences in actual skill, and probability of outcome (who
wins the game).

Not so with Alpha go. That machine just takes the surest path to victory, with
no regards to its magnitude. It doesn't care about winning by only half a
point. It cares about _securing_ at least half a point.

It may have been a crushing victory for all we know.

~~~
glandium
It would be interesting to see how Alpha Go's performance varies with
different goals, balancing between maximizing score and maximizing probability
of winning.

~~~
harshreality
I have to think they've discussed that internally, and they probably just want
to make sure alphago can win consistently, period, before they start playing
around with allowing slightly riskier moves as long as the win probability
stays sufficiently above 50%. (But how much more? You can't know ahead of time
how much stronger you are than the other player that day, or you wouldn't be
playing, at least not for money.)

It's just like adjusting komi to give the human an advantage, right?

~~~
glandium
An indirect way to do something similar-ish to what I was interested in would
be to play with varying numbers of handicap stones with the current goal
unchanged (maximizing probability of victory).

~~~
sanxiyn
Actually, this mostly works.
[http://pasky.or.cz/go/dynkomi.pdf](http://pasky.or.cz/go/dynkomi.pdf) has
details how to do so.

------
conanbatt
This game's start is already fantastic.

Ke Jie already played an adaptative tactic the bot, that is playing in a very
solid and stylish game. It almost feels like a teaching game so far.

As a former student of Lee Sedol and once aspiring professional Go player, i'd
answer a few questions if you have any!

~~~
gallerdude
How far out are AlphaGo's ideas? Are they radically different, or rooted in
human conventions?

~~~
conanbatt
There is a famous player called Takemiya Masaki. His style of game is called
Cosmic Go, and his games were some of the most beautiful games in history. He
had an amazing ability of making this natural flows and building massive
central territory: something against conventional theory.

His style died eventually because no-one could play like he did. Some
professionals even mentioned that such a style could not be played unless
Takemiya Masaki had amazing reading skills.

Alpha Go has amazing reading skills. So he can actually easily afford to play
such a style. Its like the revamping of a theory we all know its playable but
as humans have a hard time having a winning rate with.

On the other hand, alphago is definitely playing moves that are plain bad for
conventional theory, but manages to get good positions regardless. Its
possible that alphago is just more thorough, and human pattern matching
naturally discard moves that most of the time are bad.

~~~
pcnix
Could you suggest a book that explores go history in a way a layman can
follow? The way you explain it, it seems extremely interesting.

~~~
conanbatt
I dont know about history, but a book i can recommend is First Kyu. Very short
and easy read about an aspiring professional play in Korea in the 50's.

It containes many of the woes that haunt pro players.

------
devrandomguy
A photo of White:
[https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_-DoMQ0CuAQ/VzzPgbjhjOI/AAAAAAAAC...](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_-DoMQ0CuAQ/VzzPgbjhjOI/AAAAAAAACp4/5v6prECMLigEfJ23VigpjPWXoH-
lT05UgCLcB/s1600/tpu-1.png)

It is a rack of tensor processing units.
[https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/05/Google-
supercha...](https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/05/Google-supercharges-
machine-learning-tasks-with-custom-chip.html)

------
pmontra
Ke Jie lost 14-7 by FineArt recently (Tencent's Go bot) [1], but 13-0 in the
last games (an update to the bot?) so it would really interesting to see the
two bots playing each other. I watched this game [2] of FineArt against
Japan's Ichiri Ryo yesterday (1-0) and it seems that FineArt has a different
way of playing than AlphaGo, more fighting, but that's only one game.

[1]
[https://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=14125](https://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=14125)

[2]
[http://www.go4go.net/go/games/byplayer/1819](http://www.go4go.net/go/games/byplayer/1819)

~~~
albertzeyer
It's the first time I read about the FineArt Go bot (by Tencent?). Is there
any more information about it? How does it compare to AlphaGo? What
software/algorithms does it use?

~~~
pmontra
Some links about FineArt.

In English

[http://technode.com/2017/03/20/tencents-fine-art-wins-
comput...](http://technode.com/2017/03/20/tencents-fine-art-wins-computer-go-
uec-cup/)

[https://qz.com/936654/googles-alpha-go-now-has-a-serious-
gam...](https://qz.com/936654/googles-alpha-go-now-has-a-serious-game-playing-
rival-with-tencents-jueyi-or-fineart/)

In Chinese

[http://tech.qq.com/a/20170319/015726.htm](http://tech.qq.com/a/20170319/015726.htm)

[https://www.huxiu.com/article/186238.html](https://www.huxiu.com/article/186238.html)

From the second English link:

> As Tencent’s tech blog explains (link in Chinese), FineArts works in a
> similar way to AlphaGo. Both AIs comprise two computer systems modeled on
> the human brain, which can be trained on large data sets. One part of the
> system, the “policy network,” predicts which of the possible moves are the
> likeliest to be played. The other, the “value network,” then evaluates which
> of those is likeliest to win

~~~
albertzeyer
Ah, so Tencent is a company. "Chinese tech giant Tencent". They did QQ and
WeChat.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent)

It seems as if they are even bigger than Baidu
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu))
which is maybe more known (at least by me).

It seems this is the website of the group (the Tencent AI lab) which developed
the FineArt Go bot:
[http://ai.tencent.com/ailab/](http://ai.tencent.com/ailab/)

Here some article from Tencent about their Go bot (in Chinese):
[http://ai.tencent.com/ailab/%E5%86%8D%E5%88%9B%E4%BD%B3%E7%B...](http://ai.tencent.com/ailab/%E5%86%8D%E5%88%9B%E4%BD%B3%E7%BB%A9%E8%85%BE%E8%AE%AF%E5%9B%B4%E6%A3%8BAI%E2%80%9C%E7%BB%9D%E8%89%BA%E2%80%9D%E7%94%B5%E5%9C%A3%E6%88%98%E5%A4%BA%E5%86%A0.html)

There is also a Wikipedia article about the Fine Art Go bot:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Art_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Art_\(software\))

Along the line, I also read about DeepZenGo:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_\(software\))

~~~
Cookingboy
Tencent is huge, they also own League of Legends and recently just made a $1B
investment in Tesla.

The only comparable Chinese tech company is Alibaba.

------
lz400
In the other thread some people mentioned that Je Kie has already lost twice,
14-7 and 13-0, to another Go bot called FineArt (by Tencent)? odd that didn't
get any exposure while everyone is watching this game so attentively. Assuming
this information accurate, FineArt has already proven bots are above humans,
that's moot. At this point if AlphaGo loses it only makes FineArt more
impressive! The real match would be Tencent vs Deepmind.

~~~
WilliamDhalgren
Nono, you missed the REAL computer supremacy event then; it was the 50ish
(!!!) games MasterP bot played in january against the field of top go
professionals on some asian go servers. The bot went 50-0, crushing all
opponents often in interesting ways.

FineArt is among the bots that have a positive score against top
professionals, yes. But it also can lose to them too. MasterP showed that a
computer can completely outclass humans!

After the series of games, it was revealed that MasterP is in fact AlphaGo. As
far as we can tell from that series, AlphaGo is some serious ELO above other
strong bots. So now the question remains - is it that dominant at longer time
controls too, as those games were all quick. So that's this match.

~~~
lz400
Yes I didn't know that, wow 50-0! I mean, is there any doubt at this point
that it will be dominant at longer times too? and the bots don't play each
other?

~~~
WilliamDhalgren
It absolutely should be dominant in a long game too. Even if it loses some of
its strength at such time settings, it shouldn't lose THAT much, it was just
too superhuman. The play should be interesting though; Ke Jie both had access
to other strong bots in China for a long time, and could study the records of
the MasterP games; maybe he tries something interesting and gets interesting
responses so we all learn a bit about the nature of go (haven't watched the
recording of this game yet, just woke up).

There was a computer bot championship recently (UEC cup), but AlphaGo declined
to participate. FineArts won, DeepZen was second. Think there's a few other
chinese bots that could be stronger than Zen but didn't participate. So the
real competition didn't bother to show up really.

~~~
lz400
Fascinating, thanks for the answers. The bot improvements in the last few
months have been so radical I can't begin to imagine how much it must be
disrupting the strategic landscape and player status.

------
sadgit
Next challenge: a machine that can can beat a human using an equal amount of
energy.

~~~
_yosefk
No problem beating most humans already. Beating the best human? How much
energy goes into creating a civilization that produces that human? Such humans
are rare so you ought to count all the others as part of the cost of making
the best human as you can't quite make them on demand (though Laslo Polgar
might disagree).

I don't get the energy point. The machine has no health care costs and can
play 24/7\. Doesn't that count for something?

But your wish will come true. Go isn't a special snowflake. If you have an
objective metric of success in a formal universe machines always win.

~~~
al_chemist
> How much energy goes into creating a civilization that produces that human?

By your definition, on AI side we should add energy spent on creating AI and
civilization that produced it.

~~~
jayd16
I think he's amortizing the cost to zero for the AI because the marginal cost
per additional AI is much lower than the cost to sustain a civilization to
churn out and bin human go players.

------
alexdowad
A Go amateur's synopsis: it seemed like Ke was winning and it seemed like Ke
was winning and then stuff got complicated and then AlphaGo won.

~~~
nopinsight
This is a strategy a superintelligence could/would use if they want to take
over. They know that humans do not trust them, so they make sure almost all
humans with power feel in control for as long as possible. Then the situations
may get complicated for a while with confusion and disagreements between
humans during the transition.

Then flip the switches.

Note: I understand that the reason for the appearance that AlphaGo does not
have a large margin earlier in the game is quite different. I simply see a
plausible parallel with your observation regarding the game of Go and the
scenario of superintelligence take over, if we develop them wrong.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
I think this interpretation just stems from our insecurity as human beings
when it comes to our own brain capacity.

What I think is really going on (and what will actually happen if a "robot
takeover" happens) is the computer just does its thing, but because it's so
powerful, it's out of reach of any human being's understanding, and people
think they are pulling some trick.

Machines can win without using tricks just based on their computing power.

Yesterday I heard one of the commentators say something like "what i liked
about alphago today was how effortless it's playing. It's almost like it's
just playing happily and not even trying hard, giving away losses happily when
it comes to it."

Alphago has no emotion, but just like how human beings look at something that
walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and conclude it's a duck, humans
interpret everything based on their point of view, thinking "I can actually
feel what alphago is feeling, just based on its moves".

Another thing they said was something like "there's a high level player
premium", meaning when people play against other people, they can't ignore all
the subtle little queues, such as how much time they're taking to come up with
a move, whereas Ke Jie has no such thing against alphago because alphago
doesn't care. (Whereas Ke Jie does care)

I think if anything, that kind of emotional vulnerability is what will bring
human down against machines.

------
Macuyiko
I hope the next focus for Deepmind will be on opening up the black box and
trying to put some explainability aspects in place, as has been done before
for other deep learning architectures (or at least, people are starting to
play around with). So many questions of the form "I wish we could ask AlphaGo
what is was thinking here" \-- so this would be great to have.

~~~
orthoganol
Probably something like "I've been trained on many similar past situations,
these are possible moves that worked out well, let's simulate a few of them
internally, OK, here's my move."

Full disclosure, I really don't know much about the internals of DeepMind, but
if it's just a DL system on steroids with sampling, there isn't really any
'thinking' happening, it's just tapping probability distros over possible
moves conditioned on tons of training data.

~~~
Macuyiko
I didn't downvote you, but there's more going on here than just inferencing
over a database of prior knowledge. The game is too complex for that. Compare
this approach for instance to Monte Carlo based approaches which aren't doing
so well.

Speaking of Monte Carlo, the Lee Sedol version of AlphaGo did combine a series
of deep networks with Monte Carlo sampling, but rumor is that was replaced in
this version altogether (it's also running on TPU's now). Would like to see
some more technical details as well.

~~~
computerex
Their state of the art approach hybridizes MCTS with deep neural networks. I'd
be interesting indeed if they manage to get better performance without MCTS
all together, although they did achieve very impressive performance without
MCTS.

------
otoburb
For those that find the Google livestream jittery, I found the direct YouTube
link[1] much smoother.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-HL5nppBnM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-HL5nppBnM)

~~~
KVFinn
A nice unofficial commentary here as well:

[https://www.twitch.tv/usgoweb](https://www.twitch.tv/usgoweb) or
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFNgHXjIJo4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFNgHXjIJo4)

------
jsweojtj
Does anyone know whether they isolate generations of AlphaGo and then
recombine them after a while? Simulating something like, having Go being
played in geographically distinct countries for years and then having the
(perhaps many) traditions clash?

~~~
antome
This is one of the common extentions to Genetic Algorithms. It does not sound
as though they are not going to such extremes here, but it is a reasonable
concept.

------
f2f
i love the commentary. for somebody who knows the rules but is not a frequent
player it's just the right amount of detail i need. same guy who did the
alphago commentary too, i believe.

~~~
rst
Michael Redmond, the only western-born pro to ever attain a 9-dan professional
rank. (He sometimes does commentary for all-human pro tournaments for Japanese
TV, in Japanese.)

He's talking with Stephanie (Ming Ming) Yin, a 1-dan Chinese pro who currently
teaches in New York.

~~~
f2f
don't know who to respond to, but i really enjoy the way he thinks. he tends
to take over the commentary a little bit, and i'd love to hear her opinion,
but the commentary is very respectable. kudos to them,happy to hear he's well
respected.

~~~
wapz
He was voted best Go commentator on NHK(I believe) a few years ago (and Japan
has a decent amount of professional go games on tv).

------
mda
I have a feeling that Lee Sedol's single win will be remembered as the first
and the last instance of a human victory versus a strong AI in game of go.

~~~
gort
There are other strong AIs out there now, Zen and Fine Art. Both are active on
internet Go servers. They're still losing sometimes.

But if you mean the last victory against the very strongest, you're probably
right.

~~~
alanfalcon
Yes, I got that inpression in the moment watching game 4 last year: "We will
never see this again." It remains to be proven empirically but that's why
we're here.

------
partycoder
Some key differences between this match and the Lee Sedol one are:

1) Ke Jie has an estimation of Alpha Go's skill. Lee Sedol did not know how
strong Alpha Go was. Lee Sedol was very skeptical that a bot could have
reached such high level.

2) Ke Jie has been able to study a game where Alpha Go was beaten.

3) Ke Jie has been able to play Alpha Go before, with faster game settings.

~~~
gizmo686
4) Ke Jie has been able to study 60 AlphaGo games (albeit with faster time
settings)

5) No one expects Ke Jie to win.

6) AlphaGo has had more time to train. Between the Lee Sedol games and the 60
game series, there seems to have been noticeable changes.

~~~
f2f
7) Ke Jie claimed he would beat AlphaGo [1]

1:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/1219091...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12190917/Google-
AlphaGo-cant-beat-me-says-China-Go-grandmaster.html)

~~~
KVFinn
>Ke Jie claimed he would beat AlphaGo [1]

He changed his mind after watching just one more match:

[http://english.donga.com/List/3/all/26/527586/1](http://english.donga.com/List/3/all/26/527586/1)

>But after watching three matches, he said, “AlphaGo was perfect and made no
mistake. If the conditions are the same, it is highly likely that I can lose.”

>“As AlphaGo learns endlessly, all human beings could be defeated in the near
future,” Ke said on AlphaGo’s capabilities.

------
mlindner
Match is live here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-HL5nppBnM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-HL5nppBnM)

------
quakenul
Can anyone shed light on the significance? AlphaGo already beat a top human
quite decisively a few month ago. How is this different?

~~~
RubenSandwich
This is different because while AlphaGo did beat Lee Sedol a while ago. Lee
was ranked 2nd in the world for Go. Ke Jie, AlphaGo's current opponent, is
ranked 1st in the world.

~~~
Houshalter
He's also had more time and data to try develop anti-AI tactics and prepare
against AlphaGo's strategy. While Sedol mostly went in blind.

~~~
alanfalcon
At the time there wasn't much expectation in the Go community that an AI could
really compete at the top level, either. Everything is different now.

------
nialv7
Seeing how little time AlphaGo used compared to Ke Jie, I wonder how much
computation power AlphaGo is allowed to use this time?

~~~
gamegoblin
I suspect it's also likely that AlphaGo continues thinking during the human's
turn, and is more able than a human to effectively use its opponent's time to
frontload certain computations.

~~~
Radim
Both contestants use their opponent's time to think, naturally.

I'm not sure what "frontload certain computations" means, but this arrangement
sounds only fair. It's not like Ke Jie's brain switches off once he puts down
a stone.

~~~
jhall1468
AlphaGo calculates the most likely human moves when they play their turn, and
focuses it's next play on the most likely outcomes. So as long as a human
plays like a human, it's done a mountain of calculations on what it should do
next based on what the human player is likely to do.

That's kind of what happened with the huge move by Lee Sedol last year.
AlphaGo calculated a 1/10000 chance for a human to make the move he did, so
(A) it did little to prepare for it (B) it played its move prior to that BASED
on the idea that Lee Sedol simply wasn't going to do what he did.

~~~
Radim
There's no difference between humans and AI in that regard.

Everybody tries to read and analyze the most likely sequences (duh).

Or I'm not sure what you're trying to say?

~~~
jhall1468
There is an ENORMOUS difference. A computer can read hundreds, if not millions
of moves ahead. A human is incapable of reading more than maybe 1 or 2 moves
ahead in Go and even _that_ assumes AlphaGo is going to do what humans do,
which it has proven it does not.

I mean sure, if you broaden the term to the point that they both "do stuff",
then yes, they do the same thing. But saying they try to "read an analyze"
sequences is pointless. Of course both do that. But _how_ they do it differs
vastly, because AlphaGo can do things no human can. It's not just the depth in
which it can do it.

~~~
Radim
Did anyone suggest AlphaGo and the human brain work identically? That sounds
preposterous.

I remain puzzled by your comments.

------
gallerdude
Games are the first step. There will be a point in time where the only things
humans are best at is being human.

~~~
stupidcar
Eventually, we might not be the best at that either. Imagine AI companions
that can not only perfectly emulate human behaviour, but can produce
simulations of empathy, compassion, humour, etc. perfectly tailored to an
individual's psyche.

When we imagine intelligent AIs keeping humans as pets, we tend to do so in
analogous terms to how we treat animals: E.g. in sparse, constrained
environments, like cages and zoos. But those environments are designed with
animal level intelligence and instincts in mind. AIs will probably design
habitats intended to placate human instincts. And a big part of that will be
keeping us psychologically happy, which will involve providing simulated
companionship.

~~~
gallerdude
This brings up an interesting philosophical question - by emulating a thing,
are you more of that thing than the thing itself? Not an easy answer.

~~~
devrandomguy
If I was confident in a GAI's ability and willingness to emulate me, then I
might be willing to grant it my identity, after I die. My work would carry on,
and accelerate, while I would still get to have the final experience of death,
for better or worse. The people who depend on me would not be abandoned, and
the people who like me, might like the new me even better.

We might become a species that undergoes metamorphosis from a carbon based
body to a silicon based body. How much of a caterpillar remains in a
butterfly, when it emerges/ascends?

~~~
taneq
> How much of a caterpillar remains in a butterfly, when it emerges/ascends?

Butterflies retain memories learned when they were caterpillars:
[https://www.wired.com/2008/03/butterflies-
rem/](https://www.wired.com/2008/03/butterflies-rem/)

------
atrudeau
For those joining the stream now, can anyone indicate the current state of the
match? Is AlphaGo already dominating? I keep waiting for the commentators to
give their opinion but they haven't so far.

~~~
partycoder
It's hard to say since Alpha Go's style is not about maximizing a score
difference but about maximizing a probability of winning.

~~~
stouset
This is a really, really important point to consider. AlphaGo _does not care_
if it wins by a half point or twenty points. Increasing your margin of victory
past your margin of error is one way of achieving victory, but simply reducing
your margin of error below your current margin of victory can be just as
effective an approach in many situations.

If AlphaGo is highly confident in its ability to reach an effective draw in
other areas of the board, it will happily enter a line in the current area of
play that only nets it a stone or two, rather than going for more material at
the cost of uncertainty in the remaining areas in play.

~~~
davedx
How do you know that? A NN often maximizes its performance against a goal

~~~
euyyn
From the explanations of how AlphaGo was architectured and trained: The goal
being maximized isn't stone difference, rather probability of winning.

------
sagivo
i would love to see a match between alpha go vs a group of humans. I think
it's a better match since as computer can use multi cores so humans can use
multi-minds.

~~~
gizmo686
Thursday :)

~~~
sagivo
that would be worth watching for sure. the only drawback is that humans are
not usually "trained" to work together at this game like a computer who can
multi-task.

~~~
amelius
Yes. I'm not sure if game-playing by "democratic" means is going to be such a
success.

------
mlindner
I wish they would not keep panning the camera away from the explanation
though. Google hired some pretty piss poor horrible camera operators. It
really really sucks.

~~~
EGreg
They should have an AI do the camera work.

And by they I of course mean an autonomous corporation that arranges the
match, pays everyone and makes sure the humans show up on time by having
backups for everyone around them.

------
RolandHo290339
From the start Ke Jie had chosen the path of narrow but certain defeat,
without himself knowing. Alphago knew it all the time and therefore let Ke Jie
to take the course of euthanasia. The end result is a close defeat but it was
a total defeat all the way.

------
chj
alpha go wins by 1/4

~~~
alanfalcon
Which, it bears repeating, is no different to AlphaGo than if it had won by 14
points—it is programmed only to win, not to give any preference to larger
margins of win. And being so expert at reading the board, it will often
sacrifice that margin of victory for even the smallest increase in overall win
percentage, leading to many "close" games like this.

That said, I totally appreciate Ke Jie actually taking one of these live
matches to the bitter end so we could see the counting process play out.

~~~
paradite
I understand that margin of wining and chance of winning are two different
goals for optimization, but I would expect them to positively correlated, i.e.
if you are winning more, then you have higher chance of winning.

~~~
weavie
Not necessarily. If you are ahead in points you have a higher chance of
winning by playing defensive moves and strengthening your position. When
behind you need to play riskier moves which could win you a lot of points, but
could also risk spreading yourself too thinly resulting in your complete
decimation.

~~~
Someone
So, that means Ke Jie either didn't know he was losing, or didn't play to win
at the end, or played brilliantly at the end, picking the optimal move every
time?

~~~
weavie
From what I have heard Alpha Go was roughly 10 points ahead by the end game,
but didn't then bother maintaining the lead. In other words, it was aiming for
a 0.5 point lead. Ke Jie would have known he was losing, it is a credit to him
that he pushed through to the end so we could all marvel at the spectacle.

~~~
chj
> but didn't then bother maintaining the lead

How did you know that?

~~~
namarie
Because it lost points by playing sub-optimally.

~~~
inverse_pi
exactly. In fact, I was really surprised when I saw B9. It could have played
at B11 which was a 15 point move. But it decided to play safe because B11 even
though big in point, would give back strong safe in the center. (it also lost
2 point ish in end game which is typical of Master)

~~~
platz
maybe it's willing to loose points to erase uncertainty. Lee said AG took a
smaller position on the top, eating the two stones, in order to simplify.

------
FrozenVoid
Why Ke Jie doesn't connect stones in left-center groups?

~~~
gizmo686
Which connection are you looking at? The only questionable connection I see in
that group is the stick at the top (the four stones on the 7'th column); but
the cut doesn't quite work out for white because after the cut, black can
extend his two dead stones at the 3-2 point. By cutting, white shorted himself
a liberty.

------
balliballi
The new world order

------
tiktoktik
This is good!

------
rurban
0.5 is not really decisive enough. Let's wait for the next games. Je Kie is
really good, much better than in the training games online.

~~~
nightcracker
AlphaGo does not distinguish between 0.5 points and 30 points. Its only
objective is to win, and to absolutely secure the win. It doesn't care by how
much it wins.

~~~
rurban
No point in repeating the well-known. 0.5 is almost nothing, go is not just
binary win or loose.

~~~
namarie
It had a 10-15 point advantage in the middle game. It chose to whittle it away
in the endgame in exchange for more safety. In my opinion that makes it even
more impressive.

~~~
rurban
I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the troubles in counting and evaluation
of it's strange/bad moves. It's not impressive at all to go away with only 0.5
after such a large lead. Think about your confirmation bias a bit.

Ke Jie knows that he will probably loose, but this will give him confidence.
And confidence is what they need at most, much more than in chess. Otherwise
Ke Jie will probably have to end his lucrative career. It not over yet.

------
dingo_bat
LOL, apparently Chinese media has been ordered to censor all coverage of the
loss.

~~~
dashedbanana
Can you read Chinese? Every news site in China reported his loss. Try harder.

I'll give you one of the biggest media sites.
[http://www.163.com/](http://www.163.com/) It's on headline. "人机大战首局柯洁苦战落败
AlphaGo胜1/4子暂1-0"

~~~
dingo_bat
Oops, looks like I shouldn't rely on reddit for my news.

~~~
mazerackham
don't believe anything you hear about China, especially if it falls into the
"Chinese Government is an evil overlord" bucket, or you'll end up looking like
an idiot.

~~~
arthur2e5
They were ordered to censor the video livestream (only allowing text) just ~1d
before the event though.[0] Rumor has that the censorship order explicitly
called for avoiding mentioning Google in the text streams. A YouTube mirror
video livestream on Bilibili has been taken down for unknown reasons.

[0] [http://archive.is/tTgsx](http://archive.is/tTgsx) (original page already
gone)

It might not be the gov't intending to act evil in this case -- it can be some
random "old red army" hearing about Google's involvement in this thing and
protesting. But no matter what the underlying reason is, they are defly trying
to hide something they are not supposed to in order to make stuff look good.
(They ain't no White Lotus.[1]) You don't need an evil overlord to do this; a
narcissist will suffice.

[1]
[https://baike.baidu.com/item/白莲花/17505528](https://baike.baidu.com/item/白莲花/17505528)

------
IIAOPSW
If AlphaGo wins the series then Google should be unblocked in China. Is the
People's Government willing to take Google up on my proposed wager?

~~~
silverkity
They already blocked the live for this match.

~~~
Macuyiko
Did they? I was wondering about they'd unblock YouTube for a while for the
Chinese livestream. So apparently this was not the case.

There has been talk from Google recently that they're planning to enter China
again, at least for the Android space (Play store and services, for example).

