[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: computer-go: Computer-Human Comparisons

At 03:47 PM 12/9/2002 +0000, you wrote:


 Hi all,

 I have spent sometime recently thinking about how I play Go. Of course I
know this will change as I improve (hopefully :)) I have generated a rough
framework of points that I usually go through in order without really
knowing I'm doing just that. Also the fact I'm in the process of writing a
Go playing program has brought me to a couple of posers:

 1) How much do computer programs play like human Go players?


Not very.  People are much better at seeing the big picture, and visualizing
potential territory.  Computers are better at small-scale tactics.



        1a) And how far are they designed to play like human players rather
than computer players?

As much as possible.  Certainly Many Faces analyzes a position the same
way I do, although I don't know how to code many of the concepts I use and
get the same results I do.


 2) Is it desirable to have computer Go programs playing like human players?
        i.e. Will we be able to create a Go program that excels at Go using
methods that computers are made for (look at    Chess) or are the more
abstract human techniques essential?

Traditional computer game methods, like computer chess, don't work for go,
so a strong go program will use new algorithms.  I don't think they will
be human-like though.

David



 The first question is fairly clear to me at my level of play (~18k),
however current programs do appear to display a varying experience range
rather than a clear skill level. For example I think they can appear to play
to an average standard in the opening but at other times may make beginner
level mistakes that you would not expect from a human who played as the
program did in the opening.

 I suppose only Go programmers will be able to answer 1a) but I would be
very interested in the answer. Looking back at my own attempts I have
discovered that the process of constructing appropriate algorithms to turn
into a program may have been distorted by the fact I was writing them to
become a computer program. Of course this was unintentional (and I'm unsure
whether it's a bad thing anyway), whilst I was simply trying to write a good
method for finding the best move given the algorithm, whether run on a
computer or by a human brain.

 For question 2) I have been thinking that maybe it's a good idea to have a
computer program play like a human, since I expect my own 'algorithm' for
playing will change over time and so this simulation method could provide a
reasonable basis for a learning go playing program architecture. Of course
the implementation might be a stumper ;)

 Any opinions or thoughts would be very welcome,

 Julian Churchill