Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Robert Jasiek]

On 10.09.2015 08:24, David Fotland wrote:

I would say rather, that expert systems are dead in Go because many smart and 
talented people, including professional experts, worked diligently for two 
decades on this approach and none were able to get stronger than about 5 kyu.  
This is a strong experimental result, not an opinion.


This says nothing about the potential of expert systems when done right. 
General talent, professional expert system designers or professional 
players are insufficient. What is needed is a very good understanding of 
go theory on all topics of go theory as expert system knowledge.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Jim O'Flaherty]

I'm very much looking forward to your sharing your progress with us.
Perhaps you could give some more concrete examples of what you have done
already; i.e. where you have moved from the messy human
linguistic/cognitive "principles" to something much more formal?

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> On 10.09.2015 08:24, David Fotland wrote:
>
>> I would say rather, that expert systems are dead in Go because many smart
>> and talented people, including professional experts, worked diligently for
>> two decades on this approach and none were able to get stronger than about
>> 5 kyu.  This is a strong experimental result, not an opinion.
>>
>
> This says nothing about the potential of expert systems when done right.
> General talent, professional expert system designers or professional
> players are insufficient. What is needed is a very good understanding of go
> theory on all topics of go theory as expert system knowledge.
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Robert Jasiek]

On 10.09.2015 10:29, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:

Perhaps you could give some more concrete examples of what you have done
already; i.e. where you have moved from the messy human
linguistic/cognitive "principles" to something much more formal?


In my principles (or other theory), the degree of ambuigity varies from 
formal to ordinary language.


Example of a formal formula:   dF =? 0
where F is 'fighting liberties' and the formula applies to what I call 
'class 1 semeais'.


Example of (seemingly) ordinary language in a principle about defending 
life in a fight: "Maintain connection of a group's important strings."
This is not ordinary language though but I use 'connection' and 
'important string' as consistent terms in all my books, where the former 
is defined but the latter is (still) undefined.


Consistent use of the same terms and defined concepts everywhere and 
well chosen definitions for the basic terms remove much of the mess and 
enable hierarchic design and use of principles etc.


For several hundred further examples of definitions and principles, see 
my books and papers. For my first six of 11 books and earlier papers / 
messages, see the short overview 
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/RobertJasiekGoTheoryResearch.html


--
robert jasiek

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Jim O'Flaherty]

Awesome! Tysvm for replying and posting the link.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> On 10.09.2015 10:29, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you could give some more concrete examples of what you have done
>> already; i.e. where you have moved from the messy human
>> linguistic/cognitive "principles" to something much more formal?
>>
>
> In my principles (or other theory), the degree of ambuigity varies from
> formal to ordinary language.
>
> Example of a formal formula:   dF =? 0
> where F is 'fighting liberties' and the formula applies to what I call
> 'class 1 semeais'.
>
> Example of (seemingly) ordinary language in a principle about defending
> life in a fight: "Maintain connection of a group's important strings."
> This is not ordinary language though but I use 'connection' and 'important
> string' as consistent terms in all my books, where the former is defined
> but the latter is (still) undefined.
>
> Consistent use of the same terms and defined concepts everywhere and well
> chosen definitions for the basic terms remove much of the mess and enable
> hierarchic design and use of principles etc.
>
> For several hundred further examples of definitions and principles, see my
> books and papers. For my first six of 11 books and earlier papers /
> messages, see the short overview
> http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/RobertJasiekGoTheoryResearch.html
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[David Fotland]

Yes, in the old engine, I roll everything up into a single number, with a 
resolution of 1/100th of a point (only so the total score would fit in a 16 bit 
integer on the 16 bit machine I used for development in 1982).

 

I would say rather, that expert systems are dead in Go because many smart and 
talented people, including professional experts, worked diligently for two 
decades on this approach and none were able to get stronger than about 5 kyu.  
This is a strong experimental result, not an opinion.

 

David

 

From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of 
Petri Pitkanen
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:53 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

 

David said "estimate final score" which implies that all relevant things are 
factored in, merely the unit of estimation is territory. Just like in chess 
there are several things factored in - other than material - and all are 
estimated as pawns.



I guess expert systems really are a dead  end in Go. Too many contradicting 
heurestics

 

 

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[David Fotland]

No, simple radiation is not the best, although some programs (including mine) 
started with something like this.  I think the best approach was Reiss' Go4++, 
where territory was modelled using connectivity.  If a new stone can be 
connected to a living group of the same color, then this point can't be 
territory of the opposite color.  

David

> -Original Message-
> From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Jasiek
> 
> Was your influence function like radiated light? Such would have too
> little meaning.


___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Petri Pitkanen]

David said "estimate final score" which implies that all relevant things
are factored in, merely the unit of estimation is territory. Just like in
chess there are several things factored in - other than material - and all
are estimated as pawns.


I guess expert systems really are a dead  end in Go. Too many contradicting
heurestics

2015-09-09 10:31 GMT+03:00 Robert Jasiek :

> On 09.09.2015 07:42, David Fotland wrote:
>
>> I classify groups instead.  Each classification is treated differently
>> when estimating territory, when generating candidate moves, etc.
>>
>
> This is reasonable.
>
> The territory counts depend on the strength of the nearby groups.
>>
>
> Whether this is good depends on how you link strengths to counts.
>
> ***
>
> Was your influence function like radiated light? Such would have too
> little meaning.
>
> Monte Carlo has a big advantage in that it estimates the probability of
>> winning the game, rather than my old approach of trying to estimate the
>> final score.
>>
>
> Whether it is an advantage depends on one's objectives.
>
> For an expert system, estimating the score is just one aspect for further
> application and does not finish the job. (To start with, a positional
> judgement consists of more than the 'territory count' and group strengths
> of the current position.)
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Robert Jasiek]

On 09.09.2015 07:42, David Fotland wrote:

I classify groups instead.  Each classification is treated differently when 
estimating territory, when generating candidate moves, etc.


This is reasonable.


The territory counts depend on the strength of the nearby groups.


Whether this is good depends on how you link strengths to counts.

***

Was your influence function like radiated light? Such would have too 
little meaning.



Monte Carlo has a big advantage in that it estimates the probability of winning 
the game, rather than my old approach of trying to estimate the final score.


Whether it is an advantage depends on one's objectives.

For an expert system, estimating the score is just one aspect for 
further application and does not finish the job. (To start with, a 
positional judgement consists of more than the 'territory count' and 
group strengths of the current position.)


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Robert Jasiek]

On 09.09.2015 09:53, Petri Pitkanen wrote:

Too many contradicting heurestics


The mid-term problem is not mutual contradiction of heuristics because 
their careful study can remove the contradictions and establish a 
hierarchy of principles. Only the problem of great number of principles 
to be coded and maybe of the complexity of time remain.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Jim O'Flaherty]

I'm not convinced that it's reducible (as in reductionism) to get to a
rational (i.e. highly influenced by deterministic math) set of principles
to describe Go (which appears to be a precondition to getting it mapped
into your expert system). In fact, I don't think it can currently be done
for a static Go position (assuming one is attempting to projecting it into
the future to produce a probability about the outcome) unless it is in the
end game (where the complexity has be significantly pruned to leave a much
smaller search space). That said, I wish you the best of luck producing the
set of principles. I would LOVE to see that breakthrough as it implies so
many other awesome things.

I think we way underestimate how much complexity emerges from a single Go
position, much less projecting that complexity forward temporally. It's why
there is so much motivation to push MC as far as is possible. It tosses the
most of the complexity aside in favor of extremely high levels of brute
force combined with statistical analysis. And the engines that are
attempting to bridge MC with a relatively simplistic expert engine are now
finally approaching the upper levels of human cognitive ability (anything
above 5 dan amateur is well into the upper levels of human cognitive
ability in the domain of Go).

So, just in case there might be a breakthrough one or two more MC
iterations away, it's worth continuing to explore it even though it's
starting to feel like it's now stuck in a local optima in the Go engine
improvement search space. And I've personally been waiting for quantum
computing to give the MC strategy another good kick in the pants. And that
kick might be just enough to send it the rest of the way past the best
human's ability. If so, that will be tragic as it means that just like
Chess, brute force largely won...again.


On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> On 09.09.2015 09:53, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
>
>> Too many contradicting heurestics
>>
>
> The mid-term problem is not mutual contradiction of heuristics because
> their careful study can remove the contradictions and establish a hierarchy
> of principles. Only the problem of great number of principles to be coded
> and maybe of the complexity of time remain.
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Robert Jasiek]

On 09.09.2015 16:45, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:

I'm not convinced that it's reducible


I am convinced it is,...


[...] to [...] a [...] set of principles


...where the principles need some dynamic input, such as reading, when 
necessary.



I don't think it can currently be done for a static Go position


It can be done. See Positional Judgement 1 - Territory, and I am writing 
Vol. 2. The principles therein are written for humans and need 
translation to mathematical definitions (rather easy for me) and 
additional work on removing fake contradictions (which arise due to 
ambiguity in the human-orientated language, or not yet spelled out order 
of priority). However, the hard part has not even been formulating the 
principles but the decades of study raising my conceptual insight about 
fundamentals of go theory to a level where principles just fall out as 
an extra benefit.


Static positions must be understood as being quiet or presuming 
quiescience sequences (settling fights until the position is quiet). 
I.e., I am not dogmatic about distinguishing static from dynamic 
positions. Rather static positions can require some dynamic input / 
reading. (Not surprisingly; quiescience has been familiar to CG for a 
long time.)



I wish you the best of luck producing the set of principles.


Luck is useless. What has helped me was careful analytical study of my 
own (often methodical) thinking.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[David Fotland]

I agree that group strength can't be a single number.  That's why I classify 
groups instead.  Each classification is treated differently when estimating 
territory, when generating candidate moves, etc.  The territory counts depend 
on the strength of the nearby groups.

Monte Carlo has a big advantage in that it estimates the probability of winning 
the game, rather than my old approach of trying to estimate the final score.

David 

> 
> > For group strength I had about 20 classes with separate evaluators
> > (two clear eyes, one big eyes, seki, semeai, run-or-live, one-eye-ko-
> threat-to-live, dead-if-move-first, etc, etc).
> 
> Was group strength an object of several parameters or was it a single
> number derived from all those parameters? IMO, a single number cannot be
> meaningful in general.
> 
> > Groups strength was the core concept feeding into the full board
> evaluation, which tried to estimate the score.
> 
> But what WAS your group strength...?:)
> 
> Score estimation of a given position should also depend on territory
> counts, not only on group strength etc.
> 
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[David Fotland]

Some details at http://www.smart-games.com/knowpap.txt

Completely agree that connections and group strength estimates are key to 
strength, and are very difficult to get right.  There are many tricky cases.  
For connections I used shapes and local tactics to determine connectivity and 
threat points, and handled some cases of adjacent connections with shared 
threats.  For group strength I had about 20 classes with separate evaluators 
(two clear eyes, one big eyes, seki, semeai, run-or-live, 
one-eye-ko-threat-to-live, dead-if-move-first, etc, etc).

Connection status was used to collect stones into groups.  Groups strength was 
the core concept feeding into the full board evaluation, which tried to 
estimate the score.

David

> -Original Message-
> From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Jasiek
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 12:34 AM
> To: computer-go@computer-go.org
> Subject: Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death
> 
> On 04.09.2015 07:25, David Fotland wrote:
> > group strength and connection information
> 
> For this to work, group strength and connection status must be a)
> assessed meaningfully and b) applied meaningfully within a broader
> conceptual framework. What were your definitions for group strength
> and connection status, for what purposes did you use them and how did
> you apply them?
> 
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[David Fotland]

I forgot, I did publish a paper on Many Faces: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220174515_Static_Eye_Analysis_in_The_Many_Faces_of_Go

I'm not sure it's available online.

David

> -Original Message-
> From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Jasiek
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 10:29 AM
> To: computer-go@computer-go.org
> Subject: Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death
> 
> On 04.09.2015 17:55, Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
> >It is just too far removed from MC concepts to be productively
> >integrated into an MC system. And no matter what, MC has to be the
> >starting  point
> 
> No. It is also possible to construct it the other way round. Start
> with an expert system. Whenever that needs some "calculation" and
> basic counting or limited reading fail, MC can come in to do the
> calculation.
> E.g., an expert system can identify groups of likely connected
> strings, then MC can calculate if indeed (statistically) the
> connection is given.
> 
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Robert Jasiek]

On 05.09.2015 08:00, David Fotland wrote:

Completely agree that connections and group strength estimates are key to 
strength, and are very difficult to get right.


From the POV of humans, I have described connection meaningfully. The 
remaining problem is the variety of application in principles and higher 
concepts.


Whether group strength is needed at all depends very much on what you 
mean by it.



For connections I used shapes and local tactics


Shapes are not needed, unless you want to use them to prune tactics. 
However, if the tactics verification is slow for standard shapes, I'd 
say this is its fault.


> Connection status was used to collect stones into groups.

Fine, provided this is not a static partition. Other considerations 
(such as sacrifice) can make it necessary to alter groups dynamically.



For group strength I had about 20 classes with separate evaluators
(two clear eyes, one big eyes, seki, semeai, run-or-live, 
one-eye-ko-threat-to-live, dead-if-move-first, etc, etc).


Was group strength an object of several parameters or was it a single 
number derived from all those parameters? IMO, a single number cannot be 
meaningful in general.



Groups strength was the core concept feeding into the full board evaluation, 
which tried to estimate the score.


But what WAS your group strength...?:)

Score estimation of a given position should also depend on territory 
counts, not only on group strength etc.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Stefan Kaitschick]

Robert, David Fotland has paid his dues on "truly intelligent" go programs.
Maybe more than anybody else.
I find your critique a little painful. Don't blame David, that the "stupid"
monte carlo works so much better.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Minjae Kim]

Probably you've got this question multiple times, but I'd still like to ask.

Why not implement your ideas as a computer program? In my opinion
programming languages are much better in expressing logical, computational
ideas than natural languages. You can also "see" how well your ideas work.
2015. 9. 4. 오후 11:43에 "Robert Jasiek" 님이 작성:

> On 04.09.2015 15:55, Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
>
>> Robert, David Fotland has paid his dues on "truly intelligent" go
>> programs.
>> Maybe more than anybody else.
>> I find your critique a little painful. Don't blame David, that the
>> "stupid"
>> monte carlo works so much better.
>>
>
> So far I have not criticised but asked questions. I am a great fan of the
> expert system approach because a) I have studied go knowledge a lot and
> see, in principle, light at the end of the tunnel, b) I think that "MC +
> expert system" or "only expert system" can be better than MC if the expert
> system is well designed, c) an expert system can, in principle, provide
> more meaningful insight for us human duffers than an MC because the expert
> system can express itself in terms of reasoning. (Disclaimer: There is a
> good chance that I will criticise anybody presenting his definitions for
> use in an expert system. But who does not dare to be criticised does not
> learn!)
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Darren Cook]

> Robert, David Fotland has...
> I find your critique a little painful. 

I don't think Robert was critiquing - he was asking for David's
definition of group strength and connection strength.

> the "stupid" monte carlo works so much better.

Does it? I thought "stupid" monte carlo (i.e. light playouts MCTS) hits
a scalability wall at around 5kyu.

BTW, David, if you choose the CPU to suit it, can the traditional Many
Faces beat the best MCTS programs?


I find it interesting that monte-carlo needed a jump in CPU speed to
reach the point where we could see its usefulness. I wonder if there are
more traditional (*) techniques that got overlooked or abandoned 10
years ago because they were just too slow, which might now start to
become reasonable.

*: By "traditional" I guess I mean closer to the way humans approach the
game of go, thinking in terms of eyes, groups, connections, influence, etc.

Darren

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Robert Jasiek]

On 04.09.2015 16:54, Minjae Kim wrote:

Why not implement your ideas as a computer program?


- I lack time.

- Developing my ideas has consumed decades.

- I know that there are gaps in my ideas that I need to research in when 
I will have the additional time: some ideas are formulated for humans 
but lack formal precision (easy for me but it does require a lot of time 
for the many ideas); some fields of go theory I could barely explore 
yet, although I have conceptual ideas of where / how to explore them.


- With proceeding research and study, I find more generally applicable 
ideas replacing some earlier, weaker ideas. In order to keep up with 
these changes in insight, I'd need much more time for implementation.


So realistically I see myself as the author describing ideas useful for 
both human players and expert systems but others need to implement them 
and derive their interconnection (such as dissolving seemingly 
contradicting principles). During later years, I will write more about 
the latter.


Maybe you underestimate the volume of my generated knowledge. Currently, 
it is (very roughly) 1000 principles, 100 methods, 100 concepts. Maybe 
it can be compressed to 100, 10, 10 for the sake of expert system input, 
but even then the implementation task is huge (man-years). Not to 
mention semantic testing of processed data to get a "thinking" workload 
similar to my own thinking.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Robert Jasiek]

On 04.09.2015 17:55, Stefan Kaitschick wrote:

It is just too far removed from MC concepts to be productively
integrated into an MC system. And no matter what, MC has to be the starting
point


No. It is also possible to construct it the other way round. Start with 
an expert system. Whenever that needs some "calculation" and basic 
counting or limited reading fail, MC can come in to do the calculation. 
E.g., an expert system can identify groups of likely connected strings, 
then MC can calculate if indeed (statistically) the connection is given.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[David Fotland]

Many Faces of Go is MC + expert system (plus local search, etc).  The reason I 
won the world championship in 2008 is because I implemented MCTS but 
incorporated the old Many Faces expert system move generator and ranking.  This 
is pretty slow (a few hundred positions a second), so when the tree part of 
MCTS got a node up to about 100 visits, the Many Faces move generator was 
called and it applied a bias to the moves to favor moves that look good to the 
expert system.  This was stronger than all the other pure MCTS programs.

 

Now the other MCTS programs are stronger because they incorporate more go 
knowledge, either through machine learning from expert games or from strong 
player input.

 

I don’t think MCTS is stagnating.  I think DH Brown is correct about how very 
much more difficult it is to climb the higher ranks.  The rate of progress is 
about the same, but the rate of rank improvement is much, much slower.  Many 
Faces has been stagnating because I have hardly touched the engine in the last 
18 months.  That’s changing soon.

 

David

 

From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of 
Stefan Kaitschick
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 8:55 AM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

 

So far I have not criticised but asked questions. I am a great fan of the 
expert system approach because a) I have studied go knowledge a lot and see, in 
principle, light at the end of the tunnel, b) I think that "MC + expert system" 
or "only expert system" can be better than MC if the expert system is well 
designed, c) an expert system can, in principle, provide more meaningful 
insight for us human duffers than an MC because the expert system can express 
itself in terms of reasoning. (Disclaimer: There is a good chance that I will 
criticise anybody presenting his definitions for use in an expert system. But 
who does not dare to be criticised does not learn!)

 

MC is currently stagnating, so looking at new (or old discarded) approaches has 
become more attractive again.

But I don't think that a "classic" rules based system will be of much use from 
here. It is just too far removed from MC concepts to be productively integrated 
into an MC system. And no matter what, MC has to be the starting point, because 
it is so much more effective than anything else that has been tried.What you 
are left to work with, is the trail of statistics that MC leaves behind. That 
is the only tunnel with a possible end to it that I see. And who knows, maybe 
someone will find statistical properties that can be usefully mapped back to 
human concepts of go.

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[David Fotland]

No.  Since MF's search is so highly pruned, and directly by the expert system 
move generator, it scales poorly with computer power.  If I went back to the 
pure MFGO engine and added the modern ELO based pattern from Remi's approach, I 
think it would be a couple of stones stronger, but still weaker than MCTS.

A lot of MFGO's increase from about 3 Kyu in 2008 to about 2 dan now is due to 
my implementing some of the basic MFGO knowledge inside the MCTS policies to 
bias move selection

David

> 
> BTW, David, if you choose the CPU to suit it, can the traditional Many
> Faces beat the best MCTS programs?
> 
> 
> Darren
> 
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Jim O'Flaherty]

I disagree with the assertion MC must be the starting point. It appears to
have stagnated into a local optima; i.e. it's going to take something
different to dislodge MC, just like it took MC to dislodge the traditional
approaches preceding MC's introduction a decade ago. Ultimately, I think it
can serve to inform a higher level conceptual system

And while I don't get his videos (they are way to ADHD scattered and
discontinuous for my personal ability to focus and internalize), I think I
grok the general direction he'd like to see things head. And I am quite
ambivalent about the idea of creating and using linguistic semantic trees
as an approach, as much or even more than I was about MC when it emerged.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stefan Kaitschick <
stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de> wrote:

> So far I have not criticised but asked questions. I am a great fan of the
> expert system approach because a) I have studied go knowledge a lot and
> see, in principle, light at the end of the tunnel, b) I think that "MC +
> expert system" or "only expert system" can be better than MC if the expert
> system is well designed, c) an expert system can, in principle, provide
> more meaningful insight for us human duffers than an MC because the expert
> system can express itself in terms of reasoning. (Disclaimer: There is a
> good chance that I will criticise anybody presenting his definitions for
> use in an expert system. But who does not dare to be criticised does not
> learn!)
>
> MC is currently stagnating, so looking at new (or old discarded)
> approaches has become more attractive again.
> But I don't think that a "classic" rules based system will be of much use
> from here. It is just too far removed from MC concepts to be productively
> integrated into an MC system. And no matter what, MC has to be the starting
> point, because it is so much more effective than anything else that has
> been tried.What you are left to work with, is the trail of statistics that
> MC leaves behind. That is the only tunnel with a possible end to it that I
> see. And who knows, maybe someone will find statistical properties that can
> be usefully mapped back to human concepts of go.
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Stefan Kaitschick]

So far I have not criticised but asked questions. I am a great fan of the
expert system approach because a) I have studied go knowledge a lot and
see, in principle, light at the end of the tunnel, b) I think that "MC +
expert system" or "only expert system" can be better than MC if the expert
system is well designed, c) an expert system can, in principle, provide
more meaningful insight for us human duffers than an MC because the expert
system can express itself in terms of reasoning. (Disclaimer: There is a
good chance that I will criticise anybody presenting his definitions for
use in an expert system. But who does not dare to be criticised does not
learn!)

MC is currently stagnating, so looking at new (or old discarded) approaches
has become more attractive again.
But I don't think that a "classic" rules based system will be of much use
from here. It is just too far removed from MC concepts to be productively
integrated into an MC system. And no matter what, MC has to be the starting
point, because it is so much more effective than anything else that has
been tried.What you are left to work with, is the trail of statistics that
MC leaves behind. That is the only tunnel with a possible end to it that I
see. And who knows, maybe someone will find statistical properties that can
be usefully mapped back to human concepts of go.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[uurtamo .]

Learned rules from pure stats might be good guiding posts, but the pure
checking of millions of board positions is always going to be necessary.

My $0.02,

s.
On Sep 4, 2015 3:49 PM, "Jim O'Flaherty"  wrote:

> I disagree with the assertion MC must be the starting point. It appears to
> have stagnated into a local optima; i.e. it's going to take something
> different to dislodge MC, just like it took MC to dislodge the traditional
> approaches preceding MC's introduction a decade ago. Ultimately, I think it
> can serve to inform a higher level conceptual system
>
> And while I don't get his videos (they are way to ADHD scattered and
> discontinuous for my personal ability to focus and internalize), I think I
> grok the general direction he'd like to see things head. And I am quite
> ambivalent about the idea of creating and using linguistic semantic trees
> as an approach, as much or even more than I was about MC when it emerged.
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stefan Kaitschick <
> stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
>> So far I have not criticised but asked questions. I am a great fan of the
>> expert system approach because a) I have studied go knowledge a lot and
>> see, in principle, light at the end of the tunnel, b) I think that "MC +
>> expert system" or "only expert system" can be better than MC if the expert
>> system is well designed, c) an expert system can, in principle, provide
>> more meaningful insight for us human duffers than an MC because the expert
>> system can express itself in terms of reasoning. (Disclaimer: There is a
>> good chance that I will criticise anybody presenting his definitions for
>> use in an expert system. But who does not dare to be criticised does not
>> learn!)
>>
>> MC is currently stagnating, so looking at new (or old discarded)
>> approaches has become more attractive again.
>> But I don't think that a "classic" rules based system will be of much use
>> from here. It is just too far removed from MC concepts to be productively
>> integrated into an MC system. And no matter what, MC has to be the starting
>> point, because it is so much more effective than anything else that has
>> been tried.What you are left to work with, is the trail of statistics that
>> MC leaves behind. That is the only tunnel with a possible end to it that I
>> see. And who knows, maybe someone will find statistical properties that can
>> be usefully mapped back to human concepts of go.
>>
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira]

Convolution neural networks seem to be all the rave (no pun intended) 
right now. To me they do seem more intuitive in recreating the process 
of a human being recognizing patterns and getting a general feel of the 
game, and then focusing on only a few sequences. Maybe they are limited 
by the data set, but so is a human being limited by his/her own 
experience, so I definitely see space to grow there.


At least one paper from 2014 already used a convolution neural network 
in some form of selection guiding policy of new MCTS tree nodes, with 
promising results. I'm currently also researching something similar.


On 04/09/2015 23:52, uurtamo . wrote:


Learned rules from pure stats might be good guiding posts, but the 
pure checking of millions of board positions is always going to be 
necessary.


My $0.02,

s.

On Sep 4, 2015 3:49 PM, "Jim O'Flaherty" > wrote:


I disagree with the assertion MC must be the starting point. It
appears to have stagnated into a local optima; i.e. it's going to
take something different to dislodge MC, just like it took MC to
dislodge the traditional approaches preceding MC's introduction a
decade ago. Ultimately, I think it can serve to inform a higher
level conceptual system

And while I don't get his videos (they are way to ADHD scattered
and discontinuous for my personal ability to focus and
internalize), I think I grok the general direction he'd like to
see things head. And I am quite ambivalent about the idea of
creating and using linguistic semantic trees as an approach, as
much or even more than I was about MC when it emerged.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stefan Kaitschick
> wrote:

So far I have not criticised but asked questions. I am a great
fan of the expert system approach because a) I have studied go
knowledge a lot and see, in principle, light at the end of the
tunnel, b) I think that "MC + expert system" or "only expert
system" can be better than MC if the expert system is well
designed, c) an expert system can, in principle, provide more
meaningful insight for us human duffers than an MC because the
expert system can express itself in terms of reasoning.
(Disclaimer: There is a good chance that I will criticise
anybody presenting his definitions for use in an expert
system. But who does not dare to be criticised does not learn!)

MC is currently stagnating, so looking at new (or old
discarded) approaches has become more attractive again.
But I don't think that a "classic" rules based system will be
of much use from here. It is just too far removed from MC
concepts to be productively integrated into an MC system. And
no matter what, MC has to be the starting point, because it is
so much more effective than anything else that has been
tried.What you are left to work with, is the trail of
statistics that MC leaves behind. That is the only tunnel with
a possible end to it that I see. And who knows, maybe someone
will find statistical properties that can be usefully mapped
back to human concepts of go.



___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[Robert Jasiek]

On 04.09.2015 07:25, David Fotland wrote:

group strength and connection information


For this to work, group strength and connection status must be a) 
assessed meaningfully and b) applied meaningfully within a broader 
conceptual framework. What were your definitions for group strength and 
connection status, for what purposes did you use them and how did you 
apply them?


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

[Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[djhbrown .]

>
> Plans, evaluation functions, ect failed for over 20 years to produce true
> (amateur) dan level programs.
>

True.  However, the failure of a few efforts to make progress in a
direction does not imply that the direction is a dead end.  I will be
addressing this issue in a future video in the series.

Also, you cannot give reasons for moves "after the fact" if reason wasn't
> used to obtain the selected move in the first place.
>

Exactly so.  As stated in "Life and Death", the principal research
objective of HALy is for it to be able to formulate and explain its
reasons.  I feel that the domain of Go is a useful microworld for
experimenting with perception and reasoning representations.

Current research in volition and conscious choice
> indicates that conscious choice is actually an after the fact explanation
> of decisions based on unconscious processes.
>

Yes indeed.  This suggests that science is just beginning to discover that
philosophical intuitions about consciousness based on no experimentation at
all are mere speculations.

I think you forgot to suggest which pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise, to
> be using while watching this. Without said pharmacological assistance, that
> video doesn't make a bit of sense to me.
>

I am unaware of any chemicals that could viably substitute for doing a bit
of homework.  I would be happy to explain any specific issues outside the
domain of computer go that you do not understand if you raise them in a
YouTube comment.  I am aware that the video touches on several myths whose
historical origins and current implications are not common knowledge.
-- 
http://sites.google.com/site/djhbrown2/home
https://www.youtube.com/user/djhbrown
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

[David Fotland]

Many Faces of Go gives reasons for its moves after fact.  It reasons about the 
position using go proverbs, life and death analysis, group strength and 
connection information, etc.  If you have a copy, you can ask it to explain its 
reasons for making a move.  There were far more than a few efforts in this 
direction.  Many people spent decades on this problem.  This approach has been 
explored thoroughly and it doesn’t work.  

 

I believed in this approach as strongly as you do, for many years, before the 
data proved it to be a false belief.

 

We now know how to make much stronger programs with far less effort.

 

Of you are welcome to try again, and I would be really happy to see a strong 
program using this kind of approach.  Do have a plan to write some code or this 
just philosophy?

 

Regards,

 

David

 

From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of 
djhbrown .
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 5:48 AM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death

 

Plans, evaluation functions, ect failed for over 20 years to produce true 
(amateur) dan level programs. 


True.  However, the failure of a few efforts to make progress in a direction 
does not imply that the direction is a dead end.  I will be addressing this 
issue in a future video in the series.

Also, you cannot give reasons for moves "after the fact" if reason wasn't used 
to obtain the selected move in the first place.

 

Exactly so.  As stated in "Life and Death", the principal research objective of 
HALy is for it to be able to formulate and explain its reasons.  I feel that 
the domain of Go is a useful microworld for experimenting with perception and 
reasoning representations.

Current research in volition and conscious choice
indicates that conscious choice is actually an after the fact explanation
of decisions based on unconscious processes.

 

Yes indeed.  This suggests that science is just beginning to discover that 
philosophical intuitions about consciousness based on no experimentation at all 
are mere speculations.

I think you forgot to suggest which pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise, to be 
using while watching this. Without said pharmacological assistance, that video 
doesn't make a bit of sense to me.

 

I am unaware of any chemicals that could viably substitute for doing a bit of 
homework.  I would be happy to explain any specific issues outside the domain 
of computer go that you do not understand if you raise them in a YouTube 
comment.  I am aware that the video touches on several myths whose historical 
origins and current implications are not common knowledge.

-- 

http://sites.google.com/site/djhbrown2/home
https://www.youtube.com/user/djhbrown








___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go