[HN Gopher] Othello Is Solved? ___________________________________________________________________ Othello Is Solved? Author : Tepix Score : 448 points Date : 2023-11-04 14:35 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arxiv.org) (TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org) | Tepix wrote: | For those interested in the game (it's popular among computer | science and AI scholars), the Othello world championship is | currently underway in Rome, Italy with games live streamed on | liveothello.com and Youtube @WorldOthello | bediger4000 wrote: | Does this paper render the championship moot? Is any software | based on the paper entered? | | Is Othello like checkers, where there were mostly draws in high | level games? | axlee wrote: | Why would it render human games moot? Why would a software | participate in a championship? | | The draw percentage in checkers/draught and in chess are | roughly similar, (anywhere between 50% and 60% at high-level | play), despite checkers being solved and chess not. | Diggsey wrote: | Now that Othello is solved, there exist a set of rules a | player can follow to guarantee a win or draw every game. | It's possible (if unlikely) that a computer could | sufficiently compress those rules to be memorizable (and | then applicable) by a human. | axlee wrote: | Checkers have been solved 16 years ago and still see | competition. A game being solved is not exactly the same | as "apply this memorizable algorithm and you'll win", | especially if the solution implies scanning 10^n | positions for each move. | jfengel wrote: | I recall hearing that competition checkers has a | randomization element at the start, to keep it more | interesting. I believe checkers is strongly solved | anyway, but it at least keeps people from memorizing all | of the major lines. | forty wrote: | In case you wondering like me, checkers here means | American checkers, played on a smaller 8x8 board. | International checkers played on 10x10 board is a much | bigger space to explore of course. | Detrytus wrote: | Does the board size matter here? Wouldn't the strategy | from 8x8 board somehow generalize to bigger boards? The | one issue that I can possibly see is even vs odd board | sizes, e.g. play on 9x9 board can be a bit different than | 8x8 or 10x10. | forty wrote: | Solve a 2x2 Rubik's cube and see if that helps solving a | 4x4 ^^ | | From the computer point of view, it's more possible | states to explore, so I think it makes things much harder | RetroTechie wrote: | That would be a fun way to define computer opponent: | introduce an arbitrary amount of allowed compute power. | | Say, _allowing_ a purpose designed device, but limited to | 1W of power consumption. Or some fixed energy budget (J) | per move. Too strong? Take it down to 0.1W, 10mW or | whatever. | | That would degrade brute forcing as a viable approach, | and bring it back to smart algorithms, clever ways to | reduce the search space, etc. | kelsey9876543 wrote: | They are moot because the solution is known. When a human | makes a mistake the intrigue is discovering the fix to | become better. In solo copetition solved games are highly | fascinating because the person is racing the TAS or the | solved route. In human versus human games, we can simply | look up what the human did wrong. There is no cognitive | challenge in answer lookup. Its just oh, he sucks he missed | the move. Since its two humans competing it becomes "who | sucks less" but its two losers that both suck competing. | Thats the problem with competitive play of solved games, it | must be solo competition against the solution. | addaon wrote: | > Since its two humans competing it becomes "who sucks | less" but its two losers that both suck competing. | | Yeah, this is my problem with bowling and golf. If you're | a professional bowler, literally your only job is to | knock down the pins. Why do anything else? If you miss | one, you're bad at your job. Ditto with golf -- the hole | is right there, just get the ball in it! | | (Honestly not sure how sarcastic vs sincere I am in this | comment.) | uxp8u61q wrote: | Foot races are also solved - these losers should just get | a car! | kelsey9876543 wrote: | Cars are not allowed in the rules of the game "foot | race", therefore your solution is not valid and therefore | your argument has no evidence to support your claim. | coldtea wrote: | You used this word, evidence. I don't think it means what | you think it means. | | Parent made an argument by analogy, no evidence needs to | enter the picture. At best you can say his analogy is | flawed. | | It's not even flawed, anyway. If cars not being allowed | is supposed to refute the analogy, then an obvious answer | would be that Othello playing programs could also banned | in Othello competitions (given that the solution can't | just be internalized by a human player). | uxp8u61q wrote: | ...is this satire? | kelsey9876543 wrote: | In bowling and golf the mistake is athletic. You moved | your body wrong, also there are variables such as the | wind and humidity of the air in golf, and a in bowling | the ball and other micro variables effect play. It's | possible to improve physical condition with training, but | there is no "perfect". In a fully abstracted competitive | game where all variables are eliminated except for mental | choices, it becomes about memorization of the solutions | if the game is solved. | coldtea wrote: | > _In human versus human games, we can simply look up | what the human did wrong. There is no cognitive challenge | in answer lookup. Its just oh, he sucks he missed the | move. Since its two humans competing it becomes "who | sucks less" but its two losers that both suck competing. | Thats the problem with competitive play of solved games, | it must be solo competition against the solution._ | | I don't think you understand the purpose of games. | | This is like saying since we have cars, why do people | still race? | | Or "why even do shooting competitions, when a robot or a | person with a laser scope can easily win them?" | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: | And honestly I think the draw percentage in chess is | influenced just as much by sociological processes as it is | by game theoretic concerns. The very top chess players are | extremely risk averse. Chess is way too complex for humans | to ever be able to play perfectly in sufficiently complex | positions, honestly. The top players today obsessively | avoid positions like that unless they can find a forced | drawing line as a backup. | | In other words, not losing is heavily prioritised over | winning in top chess, currently. | | There are many possible ways to change this. My favourite | is to make a win worth 3 points, and a draw 1 point. Both | in tournament scoring and rating calculation. | | I think this would incentivise more aggressive play, and | disincentivise the constant slog of the same 15 top players | playing mostly draws against eachother, and barely playing | in more open tournaments with a bigger rating interval. | mkesper wrote: | German soccer league followed the English and Italian | league in 1994 with a three points rule. It seems to | favor the better teams (with more expensive players) even | more, stabilizing the championship. | https://www.fiaa.at/theories/die-3-punkte-regel-und-ihre- | pro... | bluGill wrote: | Great chess players often pull out a draw from what looks | like an obviously lost position. Mostly great players | start playing for a win, but somewhere in the middle they | realize winning is hopeless and switch to looking for a | draw. | graphe wrote: | Depends if you like 'solved' games. Are chess tournaments | useless if computers are better? | https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never- | be... | Someone wrote: | > Is Othello like checkers, where there were mostly draws in | high level games? | | Othello tends to have huge score swings in the end game. I | think it's even hard to get a draw from a typical mid game | position if both players were to aim for it. | | This result may change that, of course. | cvoss wrote: | This paper "weakly solves" Othello. That means that we know | for the initial board state both 1) the final win/lose/draw | outcome (it's a draw), and 2) the sequence of moves that | should be taken by perfect players to get there (Figure 1, | right). | | In particular, the paper does not "strongly solve" Othello. | If you have an arbitrary board state, 1) and 2) are are not | necessarily known for it. That means it's still possible to | win a game by intentionally deviating from the perfect | sequence and betting on the fact that your opponent doesn't | know how to recover. | charcircuit wrote: | >That means it's still possible to win a game by | intentionally deviating from the perfect sequence | | Someone with perfect strategy would have an answer for any | deviation. Playing imperfectly would likely get you into a | losing position. There is no way to go from a game being | drawn if played perfectly to being winning if the then | loser were to be using perfect strategy. | lcuff wrote: | I agree. As a nuance, (and I'm not an Othello player, but | a chess player) in many positions in chess, there are | many moves that, while not the best, are just slightly | worse. Finding the 'refutation' for a weaker move is the | measure of the strength of a player, and playing a few | slightly weaker moves in a row will almost certainly take | even high level players out of 'book' (the memorized | sequence of best moves). At that point, the strength of | the players becomes important, as opposed to how much | they have memorized. The strategy, then, is to have a | _slightly_ worse position from which one can recover and | go on to win. Obviously, if the opponent plays perfectly, | it is either a win for him or a draw. Typically the | 'slightly weaker' move still keeps the game a draw. The | advantage is not a game-winning sized advantage. I wonder | if in Othello there are positions where there are | multiple possible moves which 'preserve' the draw. | SonOfLilit wrote: | No, the paper only "weakly solves", so it doesn't give a | perfect strategy of the type you talk about. | | Imagine finding a pamphlet written by God that contains a | listing of a perfect game of chess. Armed with it, you | will still lose easily to Magnus Carlsen. He will deviate | fro| the sequence and you won't know the perfect | responses to his moves. | leoff wrote: | > Imagine finding a pamphlet written by God that contains | a listing of a perfect game of chess | | How would you go to prove that this is the perfect game | of chess, if you didn't explore all of it's possible | sequences? If they did solve the game, there's no way | around knowing all possible outcomes - starting from a | fixed given position. | bluGill wrote: | You don't, you trust that God has proved. | kreetx wrote: | I don't get then, how the paper "solves Othello": how | does it determine the perfect game (why is it perfect)? | bluGill wrote: | The claim (see other threads, it is not clear if the | paper really shows this) is that you can follow their | plan or any deviation from it known results. That is no | matter what I play if you understand their paper you can | ensure you don't lose. If I also know their paper I can | force a draw, but I won't win. | Asraelite wrote: | "Weakly solved" does actually imply that perfect | strategy. I think you're referring to "ultra-weakly | solved", which seems to be what the paper did. | charcircuit wrote: | >He will deviate fro| the sequence and you won't know the | perfect responses to his moves. | | Even if you don't know the moves you will know that you | are in a winning / drawn position. Magnus can not find a | way to get to a winning position unless you make a | mistake. | tromp wrote: | > Someone with perfect strategy would have an answer for | any deviation. | | Someone verified there is a perfect strategy, using tons | of computational resources and lots of time. The game | tree they explored may have millions of billions of | nodes, of which only the top layers could be saved. | | To use a perfect strategy in an actual game, you need to | have it stored in some format that allows near-real time | lookups. | | Such is the difference between weakly and strongly | solving. | | EDIT: Strongly solving goes beyond the latter, requiring | real-time best play from arbitrary positions. | NooneAtAll3 wrote: | > Such is the difference between weakly and strongly | solving. | | no, you described difference between storing the result | and not storing it | | strongly solving means allowing arbitrary amount of | mistakes from either player before giving to the solver | foota wrote: | The author isnt claiming it's possible to win against a | perfect opponent, but rather, all perfect play scenarios | end in a draw. If both players either can't play | perfectly, or choose to play imperfectly, then it moves | into unknown territory and either side can force a win. | | This does have to be mutual though, if only one side | plays imperfectly, then the other can always force at | least a draw. | | So if you know the other side is incapable of playing | perfectly, it could be rational to deviate. | AndrewKemendo wrote: | Probably | | See: Le Sedol [1] after AlphaGo: | | "On 19 November 2019, Lee announced his retirement from | professional play, stating that he could never be the top | overall player of Go due to the increasing dominance of AI. | Lee referred to them as being "an entity that cannot be | defeated"" | | [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Sedol | kadoban wrote: | That is one player's choice, but not even close to a | majority one. | | Chess and Go and Checkers competitions have not disappeared | after humans stopped being the best players of them. | JoeDaDude wrote: | IN what could be interpreted as irony, Lee Seedol went on | to invent more board games. | | https://www.dicebreaker.com/series/wizstone/news/go- | player-d... | nimih wrote: | Someone should probably let Shin Jinseo know that the Go | world championships are now "moot", because he appears to | still spend a lot of time training and practicing for them. | bluecalm wrote: | Chess is weakly solved for all practical purposes (it's not | proven but no one is able to show a winning sequence for | white even with weeks to prepare vs a top engine playing with | something like 30 minutes per move) and it doesn't affect the | competition at all. It's impossible to remember it all | anyway. | | Once/if chess is formally weakly solved it will change | exactly nothing for human chess players. If your plan is to | remember the solution you may just as well start learning top | engine lines today. | tromp wrote: | Weakly solved is a computational notion that has nothing to | do with how well humans and computers play. We are far from | proving the game theoretic value of Chess. Even for proving | that White has a draw; i.e. that White is not in zugzwang | in the starting position. We may feel very strongly that | the notion is absurd, but I doubt we'll see a proof in my | lifetime. | coldtea wrote: | "Solved" in TFA sense is about a class of proofs being | discovered, not about merely digital chess software playing | better (even if they win every game). | bluecalm wrote: | Yeah but this is not very useful concept in practical | play and that was the context of my comment. Chess is at | different stage today than it was a few years ago. The | difference is that no matter what resources and how much | time your opponent have they will not beat you as long as | you remember the line shown by your home PC. | | I call it "weakly solved in practice" because it's | exactly that: our (chess players) reality today is | exactly the same as if chess was actually weakly solved. | coldtea wrote: | > _Yeah but this is not very useful concept in practical | play and that was the context of my comment._ | | This depends on whether the solution can be "memorized" | so to speak. For games where it can, it makes playing | meaningless. | bluecalm wrote: | Obviously. The point is that in interesting games (for | example chess) the solution can't be memorized but parts | of it can. The point is that in chess we have a solution | as good as the mathematical one today (for all practical | purposes). It's an interesting point because it matters | for practical players - you're no longer afraid your | opponent or their team can find "holes" (that is weak | moves) in your preparation. You're now only afraid they | will play moves you didn't expect. | rc_mob wrote: | I don't understand this comment. Computers are not allowed to | play in the championship. | bediger4000 wrote: | I confess to being dumb and not understanding it's a human | championship. My bad! | waveBidder wrote: | chess engines are good enough to be effectively solved | compared to human play, so not really more than chess | tournaments. | Waterluvian wrote: | Othello is one of those games that works really well for playing | with young kids. The rules are simple. There's patterning to | learn. It's fun to cause massive flips. And best of all, it's | just as fun for the adult as it is the kid. | | I've found that I can really enjoy myself without crushing my 6yo | or it feeling like it's just a luck-based game. | captn3m0 wrote: | I also like Blokus for similar reasons. | ramses0 wrote: | Blokus Duo is king! | hermitcrab wrote: | Suggest also having a look at Hus (one of the family of African | stone games): https://mancala.fandom.com/wiki/Hus | | In theory there is no luck. But in practice you can't calculate | that far ahead, due to the chain reactions. | | You can easily make your own board. | bradwood wrote: | How about the ancient Chinese game of "go", next? Not convinced | that can easily be solved at all. | mikpanko wrote: | Among popular board games, Go is more computationally complex | than chess, so the latter would probably be solved first. | tromp wrote: | Go is considered close to being solved on a 7x7 board [1]. The | grand challenge would be solving 9x9 Go, the standard beginner | board size. | | Note that professional players are far from mastering 9x9, and | regularly play 9x9 tournaments. | | Solving the full 19x19 game is utterly out of the question. | | [1] https://forums.online-go.com/t/katago-attempts-to- | solve-7x7/... | mafuy wrote: | There was a recent push for 9x9. It's not solved but it is | believed to be near perfect play. | | https://katagobooks.org/9x9highlights.html | KingOfCoders wrote: | One of the first games I've coded as a kid was Othello. | | "Othello is now solved, computationally proved that perfect play | by both players lead to a draw." | | I could never win against my creation :-) | sdwr wrote: | > Next, we selected 2,587 positions out of the aforementioned | 2,958,551 positions and formulated hypotheses regarding their | outcomes. We chose them such that if all these hypotheses were | proven correct, it would prove that the initial position results | in a draw. | | But no elaboration? Sounds to me like the game is not solved, | instead the author looked pretty hard for a winning line, and | didn't find one. | dist-epoch wrote: | More likely, those 2587 positions cover all possibilities. | | There are other proofs like this - the 4 color theorem one, | which was also reduced to a finite number of configurations | which were manually colored. | BlackFingolfin wrote: | But none of this explicit. This is at best an announcement of | a potential proof. But it isn't a proof yet. | | Also curious: in the end of the paper they talk about having | "weakly solve" Othello... the paper overall reads really | strangely. | dfan wrote: | "Weakly solving" a game is a technical term. If you have | weakly solved a game, you can play perfectly (achieve the | optimal result) when the game starts from its initial | position. If you have strongly solved it, you can play | perfectly starting from any position. | BlackFingolfin wrote: | Sorry, I was unclear: I know what weakly solved means. | What I find curious is that the title and abstract refer | to "solved", and don't mention what they actually mean. | To me "solved" would suggest "strongly solved". But | perhaps equating "solved" with "weakly solved" is default | in this area? Still, I would like expect an abstract to | say something like that explicitly. | | But given the overall state of that paper I think this is | a side concern at best anyway. | anigbrowl wrote: | They wrote about this in the introduction and in the | context of algorithm 2. | NooneAtAll3 wrote: | > To me "solved" would suggest "strongly solved". But | perhaps equating "solved" with "weakly solved" is default | in this area? | | It's the default for all reasonable games - statespace is | huge (i.e. tic-tac-toe is childsplay) and simple | strategies don't exist (that'd make bad human game). You | can't even iterate all positions - even less prove them | all for one outcome. | light_hue_1 wrote: | > But perhaps equating "solved" with "weakly solved" is | default in this area? | | It is the default and all that matters. | | This is one of the dangers of reading papers as a non- | expert. You can dismiss or be wowed by something that is | totally irrelevant. | | They wrote the paper very much like the Checkers paper | from Science 2007. | jmmcd wrote: | "weakly solve" is not curious. Read from the start, they | define this. | sdwr wrote: | This looks like a George W "Mission Accomplished" moment. | | - the game is obviously known to be a draw | | - but we don't have computational power to enumerate that | | - so test a bunch of game states | | - and confirm that none of them are wins | | - ??? | | - it's solved! Trust me! | sebzim4500 wrote: | The concept of "weakly solved" is not original to this | effort. IIRC checkers was weakly solved for years but is | now strongly solved. | tialaramex wrote: | And you can go further Heads Up (ie two player) Limit (ie | you decide to raise or not, the size of the raise is | fixed) Texas Hold 'Em (the style of Poker most played | today) is _essentially_ weakly solved. | | The process used generates a statistical approximation | and tells you how close it is to correct, in theory a | perfect solution would beat this by that amount, in | practice of course Poker is a game of chance, and so over | any realistic game it wouldn't matter because the | deviation from correctness they've computed is tiny. | Could they make an even smaller deviation with more | compute used? Sure, but why bother. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheus_(poker_bot) | | Cepheus is instructive also because some humans have | played against this and believed they were outplaying it, | which indicates there are real human poker players who | misunderstand their own variance so much (and/or discount | real variance from others so much) that they're | completely unable to successfully rate their abilities. | | If you lose 12Bb over 100 hands you are not, in fact, | "winning except that it sometimes gets lucky". You're | just losing, _of course_ it sometimes gets lucky, that 's | how luck works, it's a game of chance. | missblit wrote: | I only skimmed it, but it looks like they described this to me. | | The next sentence: | | > Although there are numerous ways to select subsets that would | prove the initial position results in a draw, we used algorithm | 1 to obtain a small subset. | | Algorithm 1: | | > We developed an algorithm that requires predictive scores for | all positions with 50 empty squares and returns a subset such | that if the all positions belonging to that subset are solved, | and the all solutions match the predictions, the initial | position is consequently solved. It was described as Algorithm | 1. | | (The algorithm is also printed out) | sdwr wrote: | Algorithm 1 doesn't say shit! It says "pick the best move", | or "pick all the moves". | | From start of game to 50 squares left is enumerable. | | From 36 moves left to end-of-game is apparently solvable. | | The middle is the combinatorial explosion, and he avoids | explaining how he navigates it. | notdonspaulding wrote: | > From start of game to 50 squares left is enumerable. | | A nitpick, but I don't think you meant to say "enumerable" | here | | "enumerable" means "able to be enumerated, or counted" | | https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Enumerate | | "innumerable" means "unable to be numbered, or counted" | | https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/innumerable | sdwr wrote: | Enumerable as in "computationally enumerable", or "able | to be enumerated in a reasonable amount of time x cpu x | memory" | | The beginning and end of the game have less possibilities | to consider. The midgame has the most possible moves = | hardest to calculate. | | If you read carefully, the midgame is the bit the author | avoids explaining how to solve ;) | CSMastermind wrote: | I also got confused at this part. I've now read the paper twice | and I'm not sure I understand their method. Overall the way the | paper is written is not straightforward. | | It's possible the author is correct, I'd need to really sit | down and try to work out their reasoning but at first pass I'm | skeptical. | devit wrote: | They computed results for a bunch of 36-empty-squares positions | on their clusters and uploaded them to | https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Analyses_of_the_Game_o... | | The script at https://github.com/eukaryo/reversi- | scripts/blob/main/reversi... plays perfectly (assuming the | whole thing is correct) a bunch of data computed by other | scripts in the repository using the 36-empty-squares solutions, | for which a regular machine is presumably suitable. | | It seems that what it does is essentially look up a <=300GB | table with all positions with 37-64 empty squares reachable | from the weak solution, and runs edax with "-solve" for | positions with <=36 empty squares. | phkahler wrote: | >> Othello is now solved, computationally proved that perfect | play by both players lead to a draw. | | Did not see that coming. That just makes the game _more_ | interesting I think. | sciolist wrote: | Is this legit? It seems weird to me that this paper has one | author, from a deep-learning startup which I've never heard of | before. | dist-epoch wrote: | It wouldn't be the first time an unknown solves a major | problem. And Othello is not exactly the Riemann hypotheses - | meaning it wasn't as studied and there could be a low-hanging | fruit. | thenoblesunfish wrote: | The fact that they describe their own result as monumental | raised my eyebrows. Presumably this is being peer reviewed? | makach wrote: | Does that mean there are no disadvantages going second? | chaboud wrote: | Having not read the paper, it sounds like the author is | asserting that the game is solved under perfect play as a draw. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game | | That would point to there being no advantage in perfect play. | However, in imperfect play, the first or second player could | still have a measured advantage. | toyg wrote: | If you consider that in the early game you want to keep low | your number of pieces (because it keeps the number of possible | moves high), it becomes somewhat obvious that going second is | not a disadvantage at all. | foompy_katt wrote: | There is no disadvantage to going second... in fact, in | tournament games, the player to go second (white) wins about 2% | more often than black does. All of black's first moves actually | transpose, so white has the first real choice in the game, and | also usually has the last move in the game, which can be an | advantage. | fidotron wrote: | There is a lot of good background on Othello like: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Othello | | And especially: https://archive.org/details/byte- | magazine-1980-07/page/n57/m... | | That Byte article is about implementing practical heuristics to | create a human like player as opposed to completely exhaustive | play which was most definitely impossible on early 80s machines. | | I happened to implement a version myself at | https://luduxia.com/reversi/ | Avlin67 wrote: | no, Othello is not complex, I do not remember exactly how but i | did play a lot when i was you and did find a way to win | consistently... | jmmcd wrote: | And if you played against yourself, did you still win? | sebastiennight wrote: | Plot twist: GP is the author of the paper, and your question | is how they demonstrated that "both players playing perfectly | leads to a draw". | laurentlb wrote: | > did find a way to win consistently... | | Against who? You were playing against beginners? | toyg wrote: | A small amount of basic theory (which areas to target and which | to avoid, how to keep your numbers low in the early game, etc) | is enough to look like a master among casual players; but the | advanced game can be fiendishly hard. | omoikane wrote: | Related, here is one that plays 6x6 perfectly: | | https://mame.github.io/6x6-reversi-oracle/ | | via: https://twitter.com/mametter/status/1476379841004183556 | | I didn't know 8x8 was unsolved until now. | namtab00 wrote: | I can't get one single black... it's this what perfectly means? | orzig wrote: | "Minutes to learn ... A lifetime to master" Not anymore! | iamflimflam1 wrote: | Othello is a great game to demonstrate how powerful some basic | heuristics can be. | | There are certain squares that you should avoid placing pebble on | as the game develops - equally there are squares that you should | definitely try and place a pebble on if you can. | | Implementing these rules can give you a fairly decent opponent | and it's interesting to see how quickly people will ascribe | "intelligence" to something that is very simple. | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | Yeah, I remember my ~200 lines Pascal program running on PDP-11 | beat everyone in the lab, that was quite astonishing. It | completely solved the rest of the game when 19 free spaces | remained. | keitmo wrote: | I read an article many years ago on programing Othello. I think | it was BYTE Magazine, circa early 1980s. It mentioned pitting | an app using a simple heuristic technique similar to the one | you describe against an app using an equally simple (but | devastatingly horrible) "flip the most squares" approach. | | The heuristic algorithm won by a landslide -- 60 to 4 or worse | (I don't remember exactly). | kjellsbells wrote: | Not the article you mention but there is a fun article in | this BYTE from 1981 on a computer Othello tournament that | really illustrates how far we've come. This edition of tha | mag is also notable for its point in time history, as it has | an editorial about the coming IBM PC and quanit ads from | Apple and Microsoft that give no clue as to the revolution | coming. | | https://vintageapple.org/byte/pdf/198107_Byte_Magazine_Vol_0. | .. | lanstin wrote: | I read that same byte article, wrote a basic version that | played the heuristic way, and was unable to beat it. Good | times. | CyberDildonics wrote: | _Implementing these rules can give you a fairly decent opponent | and it 's interesting to see how quickly people will ascribe | "intelligence" to something that is very simple._ | | Who is actually "ascribing intelligence" to this? Othello has | been on $10 LCD games that take double AA batteries. | iamflimflam1 wrote: | People see something behaving based on some very simple rules | and assume that it is "thinking". | CyberDildonics wrote: | This is just repeating what you said before, but who are | these 'people' that you're talking about? | Tao3300 wrote: | > Double AA | | So you mean AAAA? | CyberDildonics wrote: | I actually remember those things taking two AA batteries, | so I may have flubbed my way into something that is still | technically true. | gmac wrote: | If anyone fancies playing the game, I made this for/with my kids: | https://jawj.github.io/fliptiles | | (The 'AI' player is very weak) | hermitcrab wrote: | I was even weaker. ;0) | | (Nice job BTW) | mumintrollet wrote: | Impressive! I used to play this all the time as a kid but I | kinda forgot it existed for a while, so this was fun :) I | scored 31 against the computer's 33 :/ | gmac wrote: | Likewise! My daughter played it at a friend's house and | enjoyed it, which is what reminded me and prompted me to make | this. | amelius wrote: | Ok, so we just have to keep adding rows and columns to the game | in order to keep the game from being "solved"? | dzolob wrote: | Someday there might be a theorem. Something on the line of "for | all nxn boards, a perfect game ends in a tie". | amelius wrote: | Next challenge: (n+1)xn boards | dzolob wrote: | The thing I love about Othello is the contradiction between | action and territory. While the game develops, playing your turn | is in some sense against you, yet you must. Hence, you need to | remain compact and inner while you occupy, until space becomes | too small and its time to reclaim definite influence. | uxp8u61q wrote: | Correct title: an unknown author from an unknown startup claims | in an arXiv preprint (listed somehow in the cs.AI archive) that | Othello has been solved. The paper is 13 pages long. | | I wish that the superconductor debacle (and many others) had | taught people critical thinking and skepticism. And yet this is | the #1 post on HN right now. | fbdab103 wrote: | Trust but verify. People were excited, but pretty much the | first thing on everyone's mind was looking for replication. | | In contrast, this is not spouting a revolution in physics, but | a mathematical puzzle that is mostly trivia. I suspect that the | best computer Othello algorithm can already trounce a human. | uxp8u61q wrote: | > a mathematical puzzle that is mostly trivia | | "Solving" a game is not "trivia" or a "puzzle". It's an | actual mathematical problem that requires nontrivial proofs | for nontrivial games. Think about it: a game as "simple" as | checkers was only solved in 2007. | | > I suspect that the best computer Othello algorithm can | already trounce a human. | | That's a completely different problem. Chess computers are | much, much better than humans, but chess is far from being | solved. | sebzim4500 wrote: | It's not obvious to me that othello is much more | complicated than checkers. Admittedly, I haven't played | since I was a kid and I don't completely remember what the | rules are. | WoodenChair wrote: | So you don't really know much about the computational | complexity of the game and you're saying it's trivial. | | How hard a game is to "solve" at least using traditional | algorithmic techniques is related to its search space. | That is a combination of the length of the game and the | number of possible moves in each position (ply and | branching factor). Chess has more possible positions than | exist atoms in the universe by some estimates. Checkers | has a tractable, for modern supercomputers, 500 billion | possible positions with about a ~6 branching factor over | an average of ~50 ply games. | | Othello is several orders of magnitude more complex than | checkers but not quite at the level of chess. So, this is | a big claim. It's by no means trivial. | kbenson wrote: | The person you're responding to wasn't the one that said | it was "trivia" (much less trivial). | | I don't think anyone was saying it's easy, just that they | didn't think it was very useful to know. | WoodenChair wrote: | The post I'm replying to said: | | > It's not obvious to me that othello is much more | complicated than checkers. | | How is that not saying it's trivial when the context is a | thread mentioning that Checkers has already been solved. | kbenson wrote: | In the past, "solving" games has often been done through | novel changes in hardware and/or approaches and | algorithms as I understand it. The person you replied to | stated that they didn't know why Othello was an | achievement _beyond_ checkers. That doesn 't mean it's | trivial, but it also doesn't mean it required any | additional insight or advances to do so if it's not | specifically more complicated than checkers. | | They then went on to qualify their statement with the | information that they don't specifically remember the | rules of Othello. In a discussion held in good faith, | this should be assumed to be an invitation to add | additional insight as to why Othello might be more | complicated. | | You either know the reason why and didn't state it, or | believe it's more complicated based on authorities you | trust and didn't relate that and instead stated it | authoritatively, or don't know it at all and | misrepresented it. None of those are very useful for | discussion. The former two are easy to rectify by | explaining, qualifying, or referring someone to | additional info though, and would have been a more useful | way to respond. | | Ultimately though, it sort of feels like you're reaching | for an additional interpretation that makes an earlier | misinterpretation still valid, when you could just say | "oops. Most of my comment still stands as accurate, but I | guess I misinterpreted your point." | | Edit: from looking at you profile, it appears you are a | CS professor. Perhaps part of the issue is context. This | is a public forum, not a classroom, and while in a | classroom your statements can be taken with an assumed | authority, nobody necessarily knows that about you here | when you post, so some additional qualification of your | statements or background may be warranted. | notfed wrote: | > Trust but verify. | | Ok, so, do you trust everything posted on the Internet until | you verify it? | | I really think "distrust but verify" is a heck of a better | rule, unless your source has a really solid track record. | coldtea wrote: | > _Trust but verify_ | | Given that most papers don't replicate, and most hype ends up | BS, "don't trust until it's verified" is a much better rule. | throw101010 wrote: | > And yet this is the #1 post on HN right now. | | Doesn't it make sense to give some visibility to such claims so | they can be verified? I would think a lot of people on HN are | equipped to take part in this informally. | | But I agree with you that the title is too categorical and | should be updated. | scythe wrote: | You really wouldn't want to have a post sit on top of Hacker | News for an hour and nothing comes of it. Think of how much we | could have gotten done on this messageboard otherwise! | mcphage wrote: | Boy are you gonna feel foolish when the #2 post on HN is | "Cancer _almost_ cured", and you realize how dangerous a | diversion this was... | anigbrowl wrote: | Boo. The paper is cautiously written, addresses a very | tractable and well-defined problem, confirms what experts | expected, and is straightforward to implement (the source code | is on Github). And yet this posturing is the #1 comment on this | thread right now. | notfed wrote: | Great, then let's name it "Othello claimed to be solved", | then pound it with peer reviews and reproductions for a bit, | _then_ we can phrase it as "Othello is solved". | SomaticPirate wrote: | The source code is on Github? Why not run it yourself and | perform the peer review? The implementation is quite | straightforward | uxp8u61q wrote: | You need to prove that the code is correct, that's the | tricky part. Otherwise I could just write `return true;` | as the whole code and tell people to run it, it's easy, | just do the peer review yourself. | cwillu wrote: | There was absolutely nothing wrong with the superconductor | "debacle". What you're preaching is not skepticism, but | cynicism. | coldtea wrote: | Given the myriad posts and articles about "huge | breakthrough", "industry changing" and so on, scepticism in | that case would translate to way more cynicism. | g9yuayon wrote: | I thought the post is #1 on HN because people here are | genuinely interested in the topic and would like to at least | examine the paper and discuss the merits of it. | klyrs wrote: | I was watching every development of that superconductivity | claim. I was quite enthused! But never once did I move beyond | "groundbreaking _if true_. " This doesn't even have the | potential to be groundbreaking. Get over yourself, let people | get excited about little stuff. | jmye wrote: | > Get over yourself, let people get excited about little | stuff. | | No one has said you're not allowed to be excited if you want. | Just like GP is allowed to be a wet blanket if they want. | | Speaking of "get over yourself." I'm so tired of this "if you | don't completely validate and elevate _my_ feelings then | you're bad /mean and preventing me from feeling what I want" | crap. God forbid anyone ever disagree with you. | notfed wrote: | > Get over yourself, let people get excited about little | stuff. | | Some people are looking for facts and science, and some are | looking for enthusiasm and excitement. Can't discount either | one, I suppose. | CyberDildonics wrote: | _Can 't discount either one, I suppose._ | | People getting each other excited by pretending fiction is | reality is called religion. That's fine if people are | honest about it. | klyrs wrote: | You can be enthusiastic and excited while looking for facts | and science. In fact, my interest in rooting out truths | tends to go hand in hand with my passion for the topic. | Negative results are important for scientific advancement, | and I was just as excited to see LK99 fully analyzed, | despite it not turning out to be the holy grail. We always | knew that was a longshot; I enjoyed the journey regardless | of the destination. | | My admonition "get over yourself" is a response to this | ridiculous idea that science should be a joyless affair. It | isn't, and must not be. Historically, fuddy-duddy downers | don't make the big discovaries. | gfodor wrote: | Calling it a debacle is an admission you yourself could benefit | from your own advice. | satoqz wrote: | I would not call Preferred Networks an "unknown startup" - | They've been prominent within the AI research community for | quite some time and have contributed important projects such as | CuPy and Chainer, the latter introducing the "define-by-run" | concept which was later implemented in frameworks such as | PyTorch and Tensorflow. | at_a_remove wrote: | I had this for the Apple ][e and would play it, obsessively. At | one point I had gotten good enough against the computer that the | average game took ninety seconds, with the computer taking about | as much time as I did. I eventually learned how to completely | beat the computer such that it had no cells of its color. I took | photos of a couple of instances just as proof. | | After a while, that got dull so I wrote a little program that | would randomly POKE into the game's memory space. The usual | result was a crash, or a program that didn't know how to play, or | would only put pieces on the lines instead of the empty cells, | that kind of thing. Every so often, though ... it would just play | a little differently against me. No crashes, no weirdness. I | always wondered what exactly had gone on with my random mutation | there: was there some table of position evaluations whose | weightings I had tweaked? A rule jumped over in the code? | pvg wrote: | That's more or less coming up with one of the ideas of Core War | due to Othello Implementation Boredom. | CodeCompost wrote: | Used to play an Othello game on my phone many moons ago. I always | won by always going inside-out. | dzolob wrote: | For those of you who think Othello is trivial, try Zebra. | | Original author's website: http://radagast.se/othello/ | | A github source: https://github.com/hoshir/zebra | NooneAtAll3 wrote: | for those not getting what is "Othello" - it is also called | Reversi | zamadatix wrote: | If you've played only Reversi the Othello variant may have | some differences. Mainly, the starting board already has some | pieces on it. The general gameplay and goal is maintained | though. | mark_l_watson wrote: | This is cool. | | I solved a simpler game about 15 years ago that my brother and I | used to play: an African game with about 10 pits on each side of | the board that hold stones. I coded up an alpha-beta engine for | it, and discovered crazy always win strategies to match how my | brother and I played. Suddenly I would win all the games, and | then he never wanted to play again. This was a classic match up | of a computer scientist vs. an optometrist. | notfed wrote: | Classic "Why nerds don't get invited to parties"! | roughly wrote: | > computer scientist vs an optometrist | | There's a joke in here about perspective | rst4455 wrote: | I'll byte... C#? | ornornor wrote: | Nice | elromulous wrote: | The brother lacked vision | bentcorner wrote: | > _an African game with about 10 pits on each side of the board | that hold stones_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancala if you want more info | neontomo wrote: | Also, another version I'm more familiar with from childhood | is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalah | Magi604 wrote: | Here is the game I played with my grandma when I was | younger: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asian_mancala | sundarurfriend wrote: | Reminded me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallanguzhi | | And it is indeed mentioned under the Names and Variants | section. Seems likely that there's a historical connection | somewhere. | kiviuq wrote: | "The game was played by enslaved Africans to foster community | and develop social skills." | | ..cringe... | bee_rider wrote: | I don't get it, what makes you want to cringe? | earthboundkid wrote: | They're humans and humans play games for fun. | probablynish wrote: | I played this game growing up (we called it Bao) - now I know | what my next party trick is going to be | sonofhans wrote: | That is super cool. I've played Mankala for years and would | love to hear more. | | It's instructive to see old Africans playing Mankala. They play | very fast. It can become more like poker, where deceit is a | part of the game. If you spam down your stones fast enough | sometimes you can skip a bowl, or drop an extra stone, in order | to gain advantage. | | I'm not facile enough to play this way, and I play with family | and so don't cheat. It's a very different thing, though. Like | the difference between British ladies playing slow Mahjong over | tea, versus people playing for money in a gambling room in | China. | jonahx wrote: | > They play very fast. It can become more like poker, where | deceit is a part of the game. If you spam down your stones | fast enough sometimes you can skip a bowl, or drop an extra | stone, in order to gain advantage. | | What you describe is just a talent at cheating, and I assume | against the rules of the game. In poker, bluffing is an | explicit part of the game allowed by the rules. I wouldn't | even call it "deceit" in that context. At the very least, | these are highly distinct categories of deceit. | weatherlight wrote: | Sometimes there's an implicit its only cheating if you get | caught. | buzzy_hacker wrote: | Yeah, in monopoly you don't have to pay rent if the | property owner doesn't notice. | jhbadger wrote: | And in Scrabble it's fine to use a nonsense word if | nobody challenges it. | _justinfunk wrote: | And in American Football it's fine to deflate the ball if | no one measures it. | pests wrote: | This is not implicit though. | | The rules state that property owners can ask for the rent | until the next player rolls the dice. | earthboundkid wrote: | In Bullshit, I always felt that if you could trick them | into taking the hand or not noticing you added an extra | card, it was all part of the game. | webkike wrote: | IMO that's still not cheating | elwell wrote: | > It can become more like poker, where deceit is a part of | the game. | | I wouldn't equate skipping a bowl with bluffing. Maybe, | palming a chip as you put your bet in: which certainly isn't | "part of the game". | furyofantares wrote: | I also wouldn't equate it with bluffing at all, but from | the description, maybe also not palming a chip. It's | possible for something that's cheating among one group to | be a part of the game among another. | | Sports have a lot of things that are in some sense against | the rules, but standard penalties are applied if caught, | and it's just a part of the game, like fouling a player in | basketball. Nobody considers it cheating, it's a part of | the game because the penalty is standardized. Of course you | still try not to get caught. | CyberDildonics wrote: | Mancala and connect four are classic examples of solved games. | | _computer scientist vs. an optometrist._ | | What does being an optometrist have to do with anything? | coffee_ wrote: | One solves problems and the other is a computer scientist. | rendall wrote: | Well as a computer scientist and programmer, I for one | laughed. | libraryatnight wrote: | Wasted his time learning to help people see, now he can't | even kick ass at Mancala! The rube! | hombre_fatal wrote: | It's a lowly profession for those less cunning, scarcely | worthy of mention alongside the intellectual ballet that is | the domain of software and computers. | easton wrote: | It's a joke. As in "CS vs Optometry, who will win in the | mancala battle of the century?!" | Keyframe wrote: | Unless it turns out OP is an optometrist | elwell wrote: | > This was a classic match up | | "classic" here is tongue-in-cheek | qubex wrote: | I did something similar for my (then) favourite game _Pentago_ | , with similar results: I drained all the fun from it. | jmholla wrote: | This is usually my approach when I'm playing too much of a | game. I cracked my sudoku addiction by writing a solver. Got | a lot less fun when I could tell my computer to solve it how | I would solve it. | dbrueck wrote: | Haha, I did this for Wordle - same result! | marssaxman wrote: | I carefully refrained from building an actual word-ladder | solver, for that reason - instead I have a little dictionary- | explorer script which will show me the next two layers of the | tree, should I get stuck. | grensley wrote: | I can't remember the source for it (help me out if you know | it), but people only like to play games when they're in the | band of 30-70% winrate. Win too much or too little, and they'll | stop enjoying playing the game. | passion__desire wrote: | If your team always wins, there is no point in supporting it, | no thrill. Everything in moderation, even winnings. | jholloway7 wrote: | Now that you mention it, this might be why my family stopped | playing Rack-O with me | uncletaco wrote: | Good ol' Othello. I got an A in AI because I beat everyone else's | Othello player. You will always be the final boss of grad school. | avipars wrote: | Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.19387.pdf | gtbcb wrote: | I would love a Wikipedia list article of games that have been | solved computationally and but also games where humans can still | beat computers / AI, discussing the challenges and context | behinds wins / losses. | Y_Y wrote: | Are there any board games left where humans beat the best | computers? | | On a related note, are there any Wikipedia list articles which | are empty lists? | kibwen wrote: | _> Are there any board games left where humans beat the best | computers?_ | | Rest assured that no computer will ever dominate a human | opponent at Candyland. | Marazan wrote: | I couldn't imagine any computer beating a human at any | Collectable Card Game in the near term. Likewise I'd imagine | that computers would be at a insurmountable disadvantage at | Deck Builders like Dominion in the general case (in that I | could easily imagine a Computer being trained to play | perfectly on a specific Kingdom but no where close to a top | human on a randomly selected Kingdom). | snitty wrote: | Until someone gives me a convincing reason why Iago did it, | Othello is NOT solved. | thomastjeffery wrote: | _weakly solved_ | munificent wrote: | _> The Othello result is a monumental achievement for humanity_ | | Imagine having the hubris to describe your own paper like this. | lagt_t wrote: | A before and after in the history of mankind. A milestone | carved in the memory of all mankind through time and space. | ksd482 wrote: | Perhaps its humor? | whirlwin wrote: | Maybe Schrodinger's satire. Either it's satire or not based | on the reaction of the reader | prof-dr-ir wrote: | The sentence certainly sounds arrogant, but I have seen such | phrasing used also by novice authors who were simply trying to | sell a result that they were enthusiastic about. Like the | present article's author, these were always non-native | speakers. | NotYourLawyer wrote: | Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair. | gus_massa wrote: | I'm very surprised it's a draw. It's not like chess where it's | "easy" to exchange a piece for an equal one until the board is | "empty" and it's a draw. (Yes, it's more complicated. I played a | lot of chess until secondary school, and it's more complicated. | But trading equal pieces is a good strategy to get a draw.) | | In Othello the number of pieces go up and down in weird patters, | so a draw is very surprising for me. | | Has anyone checked the proof? | | Edit: Is Othello solved for smaller boards? Can this proof be | aplied to smaller boards? | Tepix wrote: | The most promising lines have long (decades) been known to | result in a draw. There wasn't enough CPU power to brute force | the entire search space. | blindriver wrote: | It sounds like they "solved" this using 2 AI players playing | "perfect" Othello? | | But what if someone plays imperfect Othello? I heard Magnus | Carlson will start his games with completely unorthodox opening | moves to throw his opponents off kilter because they're always | used to playing well-known moves. Will this AI work against that | tactic as well? | doikor wrote: | The AI can always continue with the perfect play from that | imperfect state. That is what happens in chess as you can't | fool a good chess AI by making intentionally imperfect moves | (chess is not solved so we don't know if a move is perfect or | not but you get the idea) | | Basically in games with no hidden information (chess, go, | othello, etc) how you got into a game state does not matter. If | your AI can play perfectly then it can make the perfect move | from any state. | 542458 wrote: | > you can't fool a good chess AI by making intentionally | imperfect moves | | You actually used to be able to. That's part of how Kasparov | beat Deep Blue in '96 IIRC - by forcing the game into unusual | situations where the computer would have fewer prior games to | pattern match off. But by the rematch heuristics for "off | book" situations had improved, and the same strategies failed | (or even backfired). | codr7 wrote: | Dang, brings back memories from AI class at university. | | We had an expert Othello player in our class who helped with | fleshing out strategies for scoring the boards, in the end it was | pretty difficult to beat. | | Used alpha-beta if memory serves. | einpoklum wrote: | Oh, it's Reversi! | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversi | | By the way - in the general case (NxN board, arbitrary position) | - determining whether there's a winning strategy is a PSPACE- | complete problem. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-04 23:00 UTC)