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

[Vincent Diepeveen <diep@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nullmove uses a reduction factor Mark.

Saying that 'passing' was published in go in the 80s isn't relevant.

I have a thesis from Wilkins here from 1979 where he speaks about passing
in chess.

You can interpret that as nullmove too.

Important is the first succesful implementation.

That was a commercial chessprogram in the 80s.

Yet first publication is around 1991 and in 1995 the first real big proof
is there from recursive nullmove so WITH a reduction factor R.

So please get your data correct.

Vincent

At 09:28 4-12-2004 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
>> -----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/
>
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/