RE: [computer-go] Pattern Matcher

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Vincent
> Diepeveen
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 12:04
> To: computer-go; computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern Matcher
>
>
> Please don't act overarrogant. I have met past 15 years enough arrogant
> computer game researchers to recognize one when i see one. In
> fact i'm sure
> without arrogance and stubbornness one can't write a program of his own.

This is very true, and I'm not free of such arrogance and stubborness
either. I agree that to a certain extent it seems to come with the drive and
determination to be involved in a project like this for years. Maybe my
remark that triggered this outburst of Frank wasn't very nice, I just
couldn't help myself for a minute there seeing such a silly statement. But
I'm also not a hypocrite, and I don't continuously hide my real opinion
behind niceties.

I couldn't help noticing that chess-programmers seem to be much more
aggressive than Go programmers, and the amount of nastiness and mud-slinging
is far greater. Maybe it's because the stakes are much higher? Then again,
the same holds true for real play. The amount of fuss that I occasionally
hear about that happens in (professional) chess tournaments would be
unimaginable in the Go world. And at least at pro level it's definitely not
true that the stakes are higher in Chess. Interesting stuff for an
anthropologist I'd say.

> But please don't do as if i know nothing from patterns. I work fulltime on
> patterns. Not so much in go, but in chess.
>
> I happen to know exponential more than you there about the advantages and
> disadvantages of patterns.
>
> Note that my religion is Christian. My religion isn't condemning automatic
> generated patterns used either for move selection or evaluation.
>
> In your completely wrong and naive calculation below you forget 1
> important
> thing which all the automatic approaches on games seem to forget.

I have beliefs, but I'm willing to change those beliefs when they're
scientifically proven wrong. Which I suppose by definition makes them
non-religeous. My belief, as seems to be yours, is that this
pattern-generating approach is not going to work to make a strong Go
program. But it doesn't help saying to each other things that implicate
something like 'you don't know the first thing of ...' (fill in the blank).

Let's have the facts do the talking. So far I have seen no relevant facts to
support either the claim that it will or won't work. So I stick to my belief
that it won't work, as I think I have very good reasons for them. Despite
Frank continuously claiming he already explained everything, I get the
feeling he's only giving out information bit by bit. My hunch is that this
is because he thinks this information is too precious to share with anyone.
But on the other hand occasionally the urge to boost his ego by bragging
about it here is also very strong and gets the upper hand. This is only
natural, and I don't want to blame him for that. I consider this in the same
category as the arrogance and stubborness mentioned earlier. What I do mind
a bit are his unfounded claims and speculations that are not backed up by
any verifiable data. Not to mention the fact that he gets nasty when someone
disagrees with him.

If there's any worth in Frank's claims then we'll see proof of it soon
enough. In this sense this is an easy topic when it comes to proving who's
right. I get my program, you get yours. If your program wins then your ideas
were better. And it doesn't matter if the other was nice or nasty. Other
than that, it's all pure speculation.



_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/