"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."
this touches on an issue which is uppermost in my own mind at this stage. When is a group not a group? [answer: when Haylee rips it to shreds!]. Whereas i feel that, when playing, i envisage such a thing as a group, i do so because i was influenced by the theory of groups embodied in the Reitman-Wilcox program. From carefully listening to what Haylee has to say, it is unclear to me whether she thinks the same way. I plan to investigate this more deeply; my video series is not "Brown's Lectures on a fait-accompli" but rather a kind of freshman video blog, recording my trail of exploration as i plod along it at a snail's pace. Episode 14 uploaded: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OonbcgykmMk&index=14&list=PL4y5WtsvtduqNW0AKlSsOdea3Hl1X_v-S "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." Personally, i see win probability as a form of score estimation (ie move choice value estimation) . "I guess expert systems really are a dead end in Go. Too many contradicting heurestics.... " Oh, ye of little faith! :) It all depends on what you mean by "Expert System". Feigenbaum did for ES what Kurzweil is trying to do for Hidden Markov Models - ie popularise them to grab the attention of bankers. ESs did not live up to their over=the-top public press hype and the bankers became disenchanted at the same time that DARPA pulled the rug from under AI. But none of that means it is not a viable line of research. "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." There's nothing wrong with a bit of cognitive dissonance inconsistency; if you don't believe me ** - and most people do n't :) - ask Kurt Godel. **[eg that the first God invented by mankind was the female Moon; Jesus is a memetic descendant of the male Sun, etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lsQUq9EjLA&list=PL4y5WtsvtduooErlxg7h5dxQ2h2UALN0h&index=1 ] "I think we way underestimate how much complexity emerges from a single Go position, much less projecting that complexity forward temporally. " the complexity of a single position arises directly from its temporally descendant implications. Ouroboros. "give the MC strategy another good kick in the pants... 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." far from being tragic, it will be (should be) highly instructive when that happens, (as i anticipate it will, once an engine with the raw power of Watson gets onto it), as it will demonstrate that there is more to intelligence than being able, like Rain Man, to perform prodigious calculations within a closed-world microdomain like Go. I recommend reading anything John McCarthy has to say on this subject. -- http://sites.google.com/site/djhbrown2/home https://www.youtube.com/user/djhbrown
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
