Re: Pattern Matching

[Mousheng Xu <xu@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06:05 PM 3/12/99 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
>
>:     I am now working hard on pattern matching, but find myself very
dumb. So I
>: want some help from you guys.
>
>Before going into the gory details, i would like to take an overall look:
>Why do you want to match patterns? Where do you plan to use them? How?

	One simple goal: reduce calculation for finding best moves. You find out
good patterns, don't do exhausted searching -- just do no calculation or a
partial calculation. I don't care whether it's a joseki or a fuseki move. I
am looking for a "good" move, which includes all the "different ways" you
mentioned in your email.

>
>I can see a few different ways to use patterns:
>- Generally finding a "good move". 
>
>
>I think patterns do have their uses, but not as a way to find the move to
>play, merely as good starting points where to start considering the next
>move.  If you play anything that looks like a good pattern, you are playing
>a cheap imitation of go - without the understanding of the reasons behind
>the moves you can not expect good results.

	Agree.

>For example, there may exist a nice pattern for resquing a few stones.  But
>the importance of saving them depends very much on other factors, especially
>if those stones cut an enemy position in two, and if both halves are weak on
>their own, but would be strong if connected. This kind of information can be
>coded in the patterns, but then they get quite complex. If anything, I can
>see a use for patterns in the situation when the program has already decided
>that capturing those three stones would be very valuable. Then a pattern
>matcher can be asked what looks like the most likely move to do the job.
>Unfortunately I feel that often a simple read-ahead solves the problem as
>well.

	Here is my thought. Why do you care about connection, potential, ...?
Theoretically, if you can calculate all possibilities (exhausted search),
you only care about the final results. The problem, as you all know is that
the calculation is so expensive, and that's why you & I need patterns to
reduce the calculation. "Connection", "budding", "potential" ... are all
human terms that are hard to interpret to a computer, so I am trying to
avoid this painstaking job for now. :)

	Thanks for your discussion.

-- Mousheng Xu