Hi Don, I agree that the very best players can know, if they are given enough time, whether they are winning or not. But here we are talking about professionnal players. But you know, even a 9d Pro, probably cannot be certain of the outcome at the yose stage, if he plays a blitz game. Still, if he thinks he is leading, he will always play "normal" moves, defending his territories instead of playing strange and apparently useless consoliding moves like a MC player would do. Yet if he thinks he is losing, he will probably try unsound invasions and try hopeless things exactly like a MC would do, when the outcome of the game matters for him. For example, i am 4d on KGS, and when there is some trade to be made beetwen points and safety, this is always a tough decision for me. Because i dont know how many points i can concede exactly, and i dont know how risky some line of play realy is. I have lost a lot of games because i made the wrong choice in such situations. So i think you are over estimating the "evaluation" ability of human players. This is the reason why human generaly dont play like MC, because they do not have the same informations. MC are good at knowing what the situation is, humans are good at playing moves that tend to maximise territory most of the time. Humans and MC just do not have the same strengh. Somehow, i would say that MC is more intelligent, because it relies on understanding the situation rather than patterns and reflexes.
----- Message d'origine ---- De : Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> À : computer-go <[email protected]> Envoyé le : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 22h22mn 42s Objet : Re: Re : [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable against humans? I agree that probably most players play as you say. But it's difficult for me to believe that the very best players don't know if the are wining or not. I think if I had the skill of a professional, I would make it my business to know, ESPECIALLY if it were really close. I'm talking about the cases where a UCT player thinks it's winning with high probability. If a UCT player knows this, I'm sure a really strong professional knows. It's a different story when several groups are in question and a UCT players is "skillfully" assessing the odds. But I don't think we are talking about that case. UCT doesn't start playing too bizarre until a win is in the bag for one of the players. I've seen this for myself. The score gets about 95% but there are still many ways to lose if you play stupid, but the MC player knows carefully takes care of business - sealing this and that off so that there is no chance. Many times I've seen it throw away 1 or 2 points by not claiming an extra point right next to the point that it does claim. In some of those cases I counted it off myself and to my amazement it just didn't need that point and it was probably a random choice. But in those cases there was no chance of tricking a human. Nevertheless, the human sometimes is under the impression the program made a series of "really bad" moves and STILL WON, making the human feel frustrated. But really it was not like that at all. - Don ivan dubois wrote: > Hello Don, > > I think you are mostly right, but there is something you seem not to realise. > MC players are very good at "scoring". They know when they will win for sure > by 0.5. However, human players, even strong players, generaly never have such > accurate counting skills. So if they are ahead by 0.5, there is no way they > can anticipate it at as a sure win, because it would require amazing couting > skills. Actually, a lot of strong players never count during the course of a > game, especialy during fast games. > So often, the most rational way of playing is to be conservative with the > points you have, and just always play the natural, conservative defending > moves. It may be too hard for human to reason about "probability of winning", > it is easier to reason about points you have or not. > Of course, i think the ultra rational way based on accurate couting by MC > programs is a great strength they have. Its a specific strength of MC that > human, unfortunately for them, do not have. > _____________________________________________________________________________ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
