Although the general idea of finding exploits seems a reasonable line of inquiry, this is just not a convincing example.
I have played quite a bit against a number of AI go programs (w/ handicap of course) and eventually it is possible to find exploitable patterns or just notice clear mistakes.
The most obvious mistakes are usually in the end game such as confusing Japanese and Chinese rules and filling internal territory when only dame(neutral territory) is left.
But at least one bot (SpringBot) had very limited openings which lead to a constant exploit. They eventually fixed it by making more varied openings, but the exploit is still there if it happens to play the original opening.
These types of situations seem worth studying, but considering the reported strategy as an "attack" does not seem reasonable. It is the type of strategy beginners use because if they place a stone in their opponents territory they think their opponent then has to spend 4 stones to remove, it thereby gaining 3 points.
Recommendtion: Discuss the topic with strong players (those that can play the bots without handicaps) and see what types of quirks and exploits they have found.
DontTakeAnyCrap t1_ivx2qn5 wrote
Reply to [N] Adversarial Policies Beat Professional-Level Go AIs by xutw21
Although the general idea of finding exploits seems a reasonable line of inquiry, this is just not a convincing example.
I have played quite a bit against a number of AI go programs (w/ handicap of course) and eventually it is possible to find exploitable patterns or just notice clear mistakes.
The most obvious mistakes are usually in the end game such as confusing Japanese and Chinese rules and filling internal territory when only dame(neutral territory) is left.
But at least one bot (SpringBot) had very limited openings which lead to a constant exploit. They eventually fixed it by making more varied openings, but the exploit is still there if it happens to play the original opening.
These types of situations seem worth studying, but considering the reported strategy as an "attack" does not seem reasonable. It is the type of strategy beginners use because if they place a stone in their opponents territory they think their opponent then has to spend 4 stones to remove, it thereby gaining 3 points.
Recommendtion: Discuss the topic with strong players (those that can play the bots without handicaps) and see what types of quirks and exploits they have found.