Re: computer-go: Which Maths Is OT?

[David Fotland <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I've said this before, but here it is again :)  I don't think there is
a math to computer go.  I've seen lots of weak programs based on
some mathematical concept.  Go is an AI problem, not a math
problem.  So it is a big messy problem, and analyzing it rather
than coding it will lead nowhere.  Instead of thinking about
mathematical functions for go, think about knowledge representation,
automatic learning, move selection for fast reading, move selection
on the full board, etc.  Think a lot about to quickly and accurately
evaluate the status or strength of a group, and how to decide when
you have to read to get a good answer.  Think about lookahead
algorithms for fast life and death or tactics reading.  Think about 
how evaluate conenctions or territory or eyes.

If you think you have good solutions for any of these problems, please
post them.  I can probably point out some cases that will make you think
some more :)  

I think the most interesting topic is machine learning for go.  The
strong programs all have hand-tuned pattern databases with thousands
of patterns.  How can you make such a database automatically?

Perhaps Michael Reiss can share his method of buiding patterns for
move suggestion from professional games?

David Fotland


At 06:43 PM 10/26/99 -0400, Elmer Elevator wrote:
>  About any mathematical topic, no matter how unfamiliar, I always feel
>that it isn't possible for me to get to the Exit stupider than I was at the
>Entrance. Consequently I love the very broad range of topics discussed on
>computer-go. It keeps making me smarter, keeps introducing me to
>mathematical ideas of which I was previously unaware or naive. If I had a
>prejudice (and I do), it would be less about GUIs and communication formats
>for computer-go; much more for and about new mathematical ideas. Solving
>the essential problem of machine Go should be the On Topic; formats,
>protocols, etc., should be the Off Topic. Perhaps the GUI-format-protocol
>interested should be gently guided to a list of their own. Bob Merkin 
>Elmer Elevator's Discount Prep 
>http://www.javanet.com/~bobmer/ 
>  Robert Jasiek wrote: Some members of this list, maybe also those who
>think that 
>it is preferable to a general public newsgroup, like to 
>discuss all maths because it might be the basics of CG 
>tomorrow. Other members are only interested in ready 
>applications and do not read any maths. Some maths like 
>theoretical informatics is necessary even for programming, 
>so some compromise should be found for off-topic maths. 
>What does the majority think? 
>-- 
>robert jasiek
>