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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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 lik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ber 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

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

t; 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 &

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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

] 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