Re: [computer-go] Pattern Matcher

["Frank de Groot" <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Boon wrote:

> $100,000 or any other amount. I've only expressed my opinion that it's
less
> valuable to a Go playing program than a good life-and-death module. This
> because I think it's harder and more work to make.

This is an illogical statement.
The value of a software module to a Go program depends on the increase in
playing strength it adds to that program, not how hard it is to make.


> games, is the answer. Instead I think smaller sets of specialised
patterns,
> used for specialised tasks, will work much better.

No, they are *also* needed.

But your hand-entered patterns will never be able to know all contemporary
Joseki.
You would need to enter 20 times Kogo's in order to get even close.


> The only way your approach is going to be better is if your patterns
include
> Go knowledge such that you can reliably throw away the bad candidates and
> not look at them at all. And do this without evaluation. Correct me if I'm
> wrong, but I understood that this is exactly what you claim. But if that's
> the case, then I don't see why you need evaluation and lookahead at all.
You
> pattern-matcher will always only suggest pro-quality moves. Didn't you say
> you were able to do this reliably for the first 100 moves or more?

Never.


> I suggest a simple experiment? Play a game against another program, say
GNU
> Go. Let your pattern-matcher suggest the best move in each position and
play
> it against GNU Go. If you're right, then after 100 moves your program
should
> be miles ahead. If your Go level is not sufficient for such an experiment,
> ask a strong Go player for help.

You came with the belief that a pattern matcher is useful to play Go.
I never said that.
But you made it up, and then you accuse me of saying that a pattern matcher
is useful to play Go.


> Now if your program indeed shows such good play during the first 100
moves,
> then I have no problem to admit I was wrong. And in that case I think your
> program is worth much more than $100,000.


You keep on referring to my "program", thereby spreading the misinformation
that my "program" is based on pattern recognition.

I have said time and time again: I do not have a Go program and I do not
intend to make a Go program based on pattern recognition. Please stop
spreading this nonsense as it may damage the reputation of my future Go
program.

The only thing I have at the moment is a pattern expert system. I intend to
use it for Fuseki, Joseki and good shape and to help sort moves for search.



> equal after 100 moves, then I think it doesn't mean much yet apart from
that
> your claim seems wildly exaggerated.

The only things I claim are my results.

> worse ater 100 moves, then I think you'll have to admit your program is
> probably not worth more than any other plain pattern-matcher  when it
comes
> to a Go playing program. It could still have good value as a study tool,
but
> that's not what we're discussing here.

You are blabbering nonsense. Please cease doing that.


> And please refrain from saying people here are just jealous. It's childish
> and only makes us think you are the jealous one of the money that some of
us
> here seem to have made with their software.

I do not care about money. If I cared, I would not have quit my job.
If I cared about money I would have worked on commercially much more
interesting software.
It's madness to bet that one will ever make money with a Go program.
In fact I had no idea that people made quite some money with their very bad
Go programs.
It's nice but I could care less. I have not long to live most likely and by
the time my program is ready to be sold, I will be dead anyway.

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