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

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Frank de Groot
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:39
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arend Bayer" <arend.bayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play
>
>
> > > I think Vincent's post are very interesting.
> > Well they do contain interesting points but he seems to have an
> obsession
> > to obfuscate them with opinionated statements of little relevancy or
> > connection to reality.
>
> I see also a lot of opinionated statements but I am under the impression
> that he can back them up with hard facts or logic.

Maybe he *can*, but often he doesn't. It has happened quite often here that
he states something in an inprecise way. When then asked to be more precise
he tends to answer with something like: anyone who doesn't understand this
is an idiot. Or he completely ignores the question. Sorry, but you don't
gain much respect that way.

I'm sure that the Chess and Go discipline can learn a lot from each other.
But we don't speak the same language. Nullmove is called 'tenuki' or
pass-play in Go, for example, and despite Vincent's belief was already used
in the 80's. That it was first published about in relation to chess doesn't
mean anything. There's more in the world than chess. But if you're not
willing to do some 'translating' back and forth, all you're going to
understand is chess.

We all know more effort has been put in Chess than in Go, there's no
question about it.  But now we see these chess-programmers here and I can't
escape the feeling they think they know so much more, where on the other
hand they ask the most trivial questions or make the most stupid remarks
that clearly show they don't know the first thing about why Go programming
is hard and what is involved. Well, you'll have to find out by yourself as I
don't think you'll get a lot of useful information out of people you call
idiots or assholes.

99% of his
> "controversial" & opinionated statements I immediately say: "Yes,
> that seems
> logical but I have never thought of this so much actually". When
> that always
> happens, when it always seems logical, that's a good sign :)
>
> He always gives hard-logic expalnations (IMHO) and not "religious" ones.
> I don't like statements like: "I simply don't believe and only if
> you prove
> it to me then I will believe".

That is generally what science is about. You can have many different
'belief' systems. (Not necessarily religious. Religious means you won't
change your belief even when given hard facts or proof of the contrary.)
Until one of the belief systems is backed up by some sort of facts or proof
there's no argument to favour one belief system over the other except for
personal preference.

Now, you may not *like* the preference of others of course... that's up to
you. You may even call the other's belief religious, but don't expect them
to care.

Finally, to rub it in, I believe the brain is nothing but a sophisticated
computer. I also believe humans play Go by doing almost nothing but local
search combined with pattern-matching and whole-board evaluation. I believe
humans play Go well. THEREFORE, I believe you can make a Go program play
well almost solely based on local search. Anyone who believes full-board
search is the ONLY solution is obviously mistaken. Moreover, according to my
beliefs, the possibility of a good program based on local search has already
been proven, whereas the possibility of a good program based on brute-force
has not. Some serious road-blocks to the brute-force approach have been
mentioned. You may not like it, but in my opinion they give someone the full
right to ask proof of the contrary if based on these road-blocks people
"simply don't believe" in brute force but the contrary is claimed.


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