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 10:11
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play
>
>
> ----- 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.

We have been calling it null-move. I only used it as an example where
terminology differed. I never *insisted* on using any other term, you're
delusioning. Maybe we'll have to adjust to the chess-world, maybe not.
Usually choosing terminology is a democratic process, the largest group
using it wins. In Go this is not a run race.

> 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".

Again, you're completely misinterpreting here. I wanted to make a point why
we often ask for explanations that may seem obvious, but we don't understand
because of the difference in background.

> 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.

I never claimed it was invented by Go programmers. Its use probably means
something different in Go and Chess anyway. I only pointed out that a first
publishment in 1991 in relation to chess does not mean that was when reality
started.

> 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!

You're talking about ueber-programmers and ego-mania in one breath. If
anything is clear it's that chess-programmers have an ueber ego.

> 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.

This is clearly a personal hang-up of yours. No one has claimed you need to
learn go first. All that has passed here is that some of us think that
having Go knowledge helps. I started Go programming with virtually no
programming experience. It would have helped if I had had the experience,
but it turned out to be no requirement.

> 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.

So what?

>
> > 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.

I didn't attack anyone for that. What I attacked was the seeming
unwillingness to communicate.

>
> > That is generally what science is about.
>
> Bullshit.
> Science is about hard facts and not beliefs.

Ah, we differ in opinion here. Only the most trivial things in science are
completely backed up by hard facts. And nobody questions those except for
the religious. For the majority of science there's so much unknown and
uncertainty that I call any opinion on those a form of belief.

> 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.

Learn to read. Facts *or* proof. Obviously you can use logic to provide
proof.

> 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?

No, I think a 9d is good. As usual, you're not reading well.

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