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

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play



> 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


Well, I guess the Go world will just have to adjust to the chess world and
call it Nullmove.
Nullmove is a neutral term, it means "not moving" (= pass) and it is
"idiotic" to insist on some obscure Japanese Go term when we talk about
nullmoves in Go.

I see this a lot with some people here. Ego-related "arguments".
It took you a long time to become a strong Go player and to learn the
terminology.
Therefore you do not like people to use different terminology from yours,
and you don't like people from different disciplines to encroach on your
"territory".

Insisting on counter-productive terms just because you don't want to see
your status diminished is "idiotic" :)


> 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.


You are again putting yourself on a pedestal, underserrvedly.
Nullmoves are not invented by Go programmers and Go programmers have not
succeeded in producing strong Go programs, neither have they used too many
chess programming tricks in their software.

You will have to familiarize yourself with the UEBER-terminology if you want
to survive.
You can't expect the UEBER-programmers to learn your funny terminology just
because you are not familiar with the accepted terminology. "Nullmove" is
not just an accepted term in chess, it is called that everywhere, in all
discourses on game search.

Therer is a massive ego-mania in Go.
Absolutely huge ego's are involved and this is by far the biggest hamperment
on computer Go progress!

It already starts when someone announces to work on a Go program.
Then it's: "You moron, what makes you think you can do what other's
couldn't, first go and become a pro, then piss off and study for 10 more
years and have 20 years of experience coding search and when you are fluent
in Japanese come back and play with the big boys".

When I said I was working on a Go program I was basically a persona non
grata in a local Go club.

And then there is the issue with game records.
The pros keep them secret and the people who make game records available
make truckloads of cash on them and everybody is afraid to re-use them.
There are concerted efforts NOT to make game records available.



> 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.


You judge too quickly.
It is VERY EASY for anyone (I mean a 15-year old kid that doesn't play Go
with a PC) to see that Go is much harder, search-wise, than chess.
When you accuse one of the best chess programmers to be below that level,
even though he has obviously spent quite some time on Go (even coded up a
lot of code), you are simply insulting.

Any idiot sees immediately why Go is harder than chess.
When I was a child (I was a minor) I fully understood why programming Go was
harder than chess.
That is 24 years ago. I had a PC and I was programming a compiler to be able
to write a chess program.

I am sure Vincent did similar things and attacking people because they use
"nullmove" and not "tenuki" is plain silly.


> That is generally what science is about.

Bullshit.
Science is about hard facts and not beliefs.
If I had to work with "beliefs", I would literally have been dead now, as in
practice, medical people (as all people) prefer personal beliefs and adapt
what they read to what they believe. Basically, only 1% of people is looking
for the truth, the rest is looking for factoids that supports their beliefs.
And ego often throws a monley wrench into the system, as well as vested
interests.


> 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.


You don't need facts when you can use logic.
And as long as you have a belief only that is not backed up by facts or
logic, by definition you are a fool.
That is namely the definition of foolishness.


> Finally, to rub it in, I believe the brain is nothing but a sophisticated
> computer.

This is a very general statement.
The brain is a massive neural network with digital neurons (pulsetrains) and
(chemical - infinite) associative memory.
It is as far from a conventional (von Neumann) computer as an ant is from a
whale.
You are saying: "I believe an ant is an animal just like a whale is an
animal".


> 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.

Vincent has already clarified his position and you are lagging behind.

> 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.

I was not aware that there are any good Go programs?
You think 8k is good?

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