Re: [computer-go] Pattern Matcher

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxx>]

I could see a far  future pattern matcher being unlimited in potential
playing strength.  Depending  on what the patterns are  used for, they
must 100% correct.   If they are used to suggest  n possible moves, at
least the BEST move must  be guaranteed.  If a pattern indicates life,
it must be proof of life, etc.

You can easily  build perfect move databases by  playing very close to
the end of  the game with global searchers.   Unfortunately, you might
not be able  to easily get certain early  game representative patterns
this way.

- Don



   X-Original-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   X-Originating-IP: [212.247.68.213]
   X-Originating-Email: [vlad_dumitrescu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
   X-Sender: vlad_dumitrescu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   From: "Vlad Dumitrescu" <vlad_dumitrescu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:21:32 +0100
   X-Priority: 3
   X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
   X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
   X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2004 14:22:00.0946 (UTC)
	   FILETIME=[4FEA0D20:01C4C59E]
   Reply-To: computer-go <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Sender: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42

   From: "Frank de Groot" <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   > I thought I had explained several times how my pattern matcher works. It
   > first collects the 8 million most frequent patterns used in contemporary Go,
   > based on counting the frequency of patterns in a population of
   > 125,000,000,000. Then it establishes the correlated (relative) whole-board
   > values of those patterns by statistical analysis.

   Hi,

   Please forgive my ignorance and let me ask a honest question myself.

   You say that your pattern matched 85% of the plays from an unseen game. I think
   it is a remarkable fact.

   What concerns me is the rest 15%. From 120 moves, this is about 18 moves. Did
   you compare them with what was actually played? Were they better or worse?

   I'd also make a comment. I also was into pattern matching (not at the level
   discussed here, of course) and I thought it would be a great thing. But later I
   realized one thing: a program using this technique is doomed to be a step back
   from human players. It has no creativity, it can't invent new things [*]. This
   isn't meaning it isn't useful - but that it is only a part of the answer, not
   THE answer[**].

   Given enough breakthroughs like that, I think we will see major improvements
   when someone will assemble them together into a playing machine.

   best regards,
   Vlad

   [*] Let's assume a perfect pattern matcher that had as base data all games ever
   played up to 1900 (recorded or not). I'm sure it would be very, very strong.
   Would it stand a chance against Go Seigen, Takemiya or Lee Chang Ho? There's a
   lot of never-seen-before stuff in their play, and I hope that the next 100 years
   will bring up just as many innovations, and the next 100 even more so!

   [**] Well, we all know THE answer is 42, but what was the question again? :-)

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

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