Re: computer-go: Pattern matching

["Gary Boos" <gboos@xxxxxxx>]

Outstanding work !

 I'm eager to see your program move to
19x19.  Note that I am a member of the program TeamGo and
it plays a decent opening but poor middlegame.
Any chance of merging the two programs some how (if only
for a test ).  I'm willing to send both executable and source code.
        Gary
-----------
-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Hughes and David Elsdon <babel17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: computer-go: Pattern matching


>"Hans F. Zschintzsch" wrote:
>
>> > I confidently expect a computer to "beat" a 9 Dan Professional before
>> > the year 2010.
>>
>> How many humans you know who only needed 10y form 5k to 9d ?
>
>This really is not the point !! I have written an expert system which
>successfully captured the knowledge of a particular area of optical design
>from an optical design expert. I did not have to become an optical design
>expert in order to do this. I spent about half a day a week with the expert
>for some 40 weeks eliciting the knowledge and structuring it. There were
>two of us who were involved with the coding. The resulting system, running
>on a Micro-Vax, did in half an hour what took the expert hours or days to
>achieve.
>
>The system we built knows a lot more about optical design than I do !!
>
>The resulting system also codified the experts knowledge. This codification
>looks nothing like a text book on optical design. Instead it captures all
>the heuristics the expert actually uses to do his job.
>
>> I tried too, but my first program played Go so incredibly
>> bad - after a lot of effort - that i'm convinced a "break
>> through in computing technology" is needed to get near
>> 5 handicap stones of pro level.
>
>> My theory: Everybody who tried in theory only and not really
>> made a program play, severly underestimates the difficulties
>> to get as high (or low) as 5k, which todays best Go playing
>> programs have achieved (as far as i know).
>
>I have written a program in Prolog which uses about 10 Go concepts
>(strings, influence, cutting-points, etc) and 30 rules and no lookahead at
>all. It takes less than a second to make a move and plays quite well - for
>a program. It beat Plodder on the 9x9 go-ladder. It can also beat Many
>Faces on a 9x9 board when playing white, but loses by about 20 points when
>playing black. Clearly my program is not robust, but quite good considering
>I have only spent a few months developing it.
>
>> PS. Please show us what your program does today.
>
>Certainly, I can send you the Prolog code or we can arrange to meet on one
>of the Go Servers where you can play against my program. It only plays on a
>9x9 board since it has no rules to play 19x19 fuseki yet.
>
>
>