This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to
board games and
tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Go, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the game of Go on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoWikipedia:WikiProject GoTemplate:WikiProject GoGo articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
Whether this should be an independent article is indeed the essence of the question. But, as I have already said: there is nothing to merge. So it is nonsensical to speak of "merging" specifically. The question is effectively whether material should be taken from the Summit article (more in the nature of a split), and depends entirely on how that article is handled. The result here will derive from the result there, so we ought to have the discussion there. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
20:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
When a page is a stub and has noting to merge, merging it to another article means simply redirecting it to that article. Wikipedia does not have a special procedure to discuss redirecting a page to another article. The relevant procedure is just
Wikipedia:Merging. Therefore it is correct to add
Template:Merge to a stub that even has nothing to merge if an editor proposes redirecting it to another article. --
Neo-Jay (
talk)
00:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No, it's not correct. A redirect usually follows a merger, but (is this too subtle for you to understand?) there is nothing to merge; your fanciful interpretation is idiosyncratic at best. In fact, what I have proposed is a moving content from another article, rather the reverse of a merge. Just for the record, I oppose yourthis cockamamy proposal for a "merge" that you are so adamantly set on. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
21:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
To many readers, SGF records of the games would be more useful than the diagrams currently provided. I'd provide them myself, if I knew where to find them all.
Maproom (
talk)
08:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
SGF records are not readable at Wikipedia pages. I don't think that it is appropriate to add SGF records to Wikipedia articles. --
Neo-Jay (
talk)
10:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No cited source states DeepMind had a stronger version on April 7
"AlphaGo Master was actually the second best version that DeepMind had at the time, for it was already in possession of AlphaGo Zero, a version much stronger than the Master version; this can be known by the fact that Nature received their paper on AlphaGo Zero on April 7, before the games with Ke Jie.[7] DeepMind did not reveal the existence of Alphago Zero until the paper was published in Nature in October 2017."
User:Maproom The source does not state that DeepMind's AlphaGo Zero was "much stronger than the Master version" on April 7, as the Wikipedia page currently claims. We don't know what the draft version submitted on April 7 stated, and Zero would obviously have time to progress significantly in power since April 7. Therefore this line should be removed unless it can be appropriately sourced.
Rolf H Nelson (
talk)
19:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The source (which you can read without payment at
https://deepmind.com/documents/119/agz_unformatted_nature.pdf) shows a graph of AlphaGo Zero ("Reinforcement Learning") overtaking AlphaGo Master ("AlphaGo Lee") after about 25 hours of self-training. The source is described in Nature as "Received: 07 April 2017". Admittedly, I am inferring that something described in the source must have occurred before the source was submitted for publication, which might be regarded as
Original Research.
Maproom (
talk)
20:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm thinking more that there could have been improvements to AlphaGo between the draft in April and final publication in October. The published version may be a revised version of AlphaGo Zero. If the tweaks were minor, they wouldn't even have to update the methods part of the publication, just the results. Perhaps the initial version of Zero only beat the previously-published AlphaGo, but was worth publishing in Nature due to its ability to start from scratch. Of course, it is also plausible that everyone at DeepMind took their hands completely off the project after April; IMHO we just don't know without a source.
Rolf H Nelson (
talk)
19:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
To those (like me) who have been following the impressive achievements of the AlphaGo team, it was astonishing to learn that when AlphaGo made headlines by convincingly beat the world's strongest player, the team had already developed a significantly stronger program.
Maproom (
talk)
08:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
So you are "astonished" that development on a newer model did not stop just because the previous model was entered in a tournament? Why are you astonished? And back to my original question: why does that matter? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
20:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
What astonished me was the rapid progress in the strength of AlphaGo. It advanced from beating Fan Hui to beating Ke Jie in 15 months – that's impressive. Then I learned that when it had beaten Ke Jie, a much stronger version had already existed. That was astonishing.
The rate of progress is, indeed, astonishing. Also the reduction of hardware, going from 48 TPUs to only four, and even simplifications in the software. And the results? We are still assessing that. That Deepmind was going so fast they had the new model in the wings before the older one had even strutted its stuff is impressive, but I think rather anticlimatic. And not as suggestive as some others seem to think; just a result of how fast they were going. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
IMHO adding a timeline section or article for
AlphaGo or
Computer Go would be a better way of neutrally conveying what is actually known. The paper submission and the Ke match could both be included on the timeline alongside other events, without making any unsourced speculations about what the timing means. In theory you could ask DeepMind to tweet their development timelines, or scrounge around in interviews in hopes of finding clues, but that seems a poor cost/benefit ratio to me. BTW I've linked to this discussion from the
Talk:AlphaGo Zero since they have a similar discussion.
Rolf H Nelson (
talk)
02:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The only reason (seen so far) for having the acceptance date is in support of this crazy conspiracy theory. Lacking any other basis, inclusion of the acceptance date is at best a trivial, insignificant, irrelevant detail, that verges on non-neutrality. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
21:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply