Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play

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

From: "Erik van der Werf" <E.vanderWerf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play


> Frank de Groot wrote:
> > We forget that atomic clocks measure the resonance of atoms, they do not
> > measure time!
>
> No, this is how time is defined. The experimental results would not
> change if you switched to any other sufficiently accurate chemical or
> mechanical process to measure time.

Probably not.
But I hope it's clear that measuring the oscillatory frequency of
centrifuged Xeon atoms is not the same as measuring time.

The fact that time is defined in oscillatory periods of a certain atom is
only because we lack a more accurate means to measure or define time, not
because time "is" what our definition says it is.

They used to measure distance in terms of a piece of Platinum-Irridium and
now they define it in quantum-mechanic terms similar to time but STILL it's
a bogus definition. Wrong and it gives false results at relativistic speeds
:)

Adjusting the definition to to "solve" a problem is a sign of weakness
(ignorance).
Quantum meachanics is mainly the science of finding mathematical models that
comply as much as possible to reality, not descovering reality itself. We
lack the energies to do the measurements so we have to make up clever
approximations.
We did that with time as well.

The problem is that we can't be an outside observer to our universe.
We can't define anything in terms that do not exist in our universe.
So first we have to find all fundamental laws and express everything  in
terms of those laws.

Time is NOT expressed in fundamental laws but as what happens to a MACHINE
(an atom is a machine, a very complex, large and intricate machine made of
many componments - how the hell do you want to use it for ANY definition
escapes me..).
Well when you centrifuge a mechanical device, a machine like any atom is,
then of course that machine starts to become affected by the forces exerted
upon it and there goes your "time". The definition of time, distance etc.
are flawed.


> Duh, of course special relativity is incomplete. This is why Einstein
> came up with general relativity. Moreover it is well known that
> Einsteins relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Both are bogus :)
Both are religious opinions, not fact.


> Except of course that a bad move against a pro is a good move against
> your system ;-)

Yes but that is not due to the fact that I have no "bad examples".
That is due to the inherent limitations to a "pure good shape" system.

So you *really* have not understood the whole concept I am trying to defend.
Yes I *do* have "bad examples" and this is why the pattern system approaches
the theoretical maximum performance of a "pure pattern" system.

If you want to ameliorate the weaknesses of a pattern system, the solutions
is not having more "bad examples", but to intruduce entirely new systems
based on different aspects of the game.


> I strongly doubt it. Even on 9x9 the statistics are not favorable for
> tengen.

Which statistics?
Based on actual games?
Or computer self-play?

I would trust the latter more than the former, as the former is "novel" and
"unconventional" and therefore there aren't many statistics for 19x19.

BTW my pattern system does not work for 9x9.
9x9 and 19x19 are so vastly different at the opening stage that it simply
doesn't scale down well.
I have never even tried it but I can't imagine that it will perform well.
Let alone that I trust the very sparse 9x9 "Tengen" statistics for 19x19.

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