On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Christoph Birk < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Don Dailey wrote: > >> Like I say some experimentation is to be expected, even in the real match. >> The issue that is of interest to me is whether the loss should be >> considered >> relevant or not. Did John play stupid moves on purpose "just to see >> what >> the program would do?" >> > > Why would he play a stupid move? Let me use the term "weak" move as it is more in line with my intended meaning. John could very legitimately play a "weak" move on purpose to find out what he can get away with. A weak move can give you better winning chances against a fallible opponent than a good move and it can be used to find out what the weaknesses of a player are. But when a player loses a game playing these "weak" moves on purpose, he can just announce that he was "experimenting" and that the game is not to be taken seriously. > Or did he play hard? >> > > Playing "hard" and "expriment" are not mutually exclusive. > Yes, I think you are understanding my point now. In different words I've said the same thing twice already. > In a test game I would not necessarily see winning as the prime > objective, but rather gather experience how a programm reacts > to various styles. > I'm not really looking to spar with you. You are not telling me anything I don't already know and I'm sure it's the same for you. Only John can actually answer my question which is pretty simple - did he go all out to win or was he playing around? Did he consider this a serious game? Was he fully engaged and focused and did he care about the result? Obviously in ANY game you play a combination of all the above is a factor, but I'm not looking for a philosophical discussion or a scientifically rigid definition of "test match", I just want to know how much effort John perceived that he put into winning the game. Only he can answer this and the answer might be that he really was trying to win, or it might be that winning was not a very important consideration or anything in between. I cannot relate so much to go as I am a chess player. I know that if I were in his position and I were to play a serious match against some computer chess opponent (one weak enough that I had a realistic chance of winning) then my test matches would really be more like "training matches" as I feel that going all out would be the best way to find out what I was up against and to learn about my opponent. John may have a completely different notion however about how this should be approached and out of curiosity I would like to know if he is willing to share his experiences. This is something you cannot tell me. > Eg. opening style, life & death evaluation. In paricular > trying to create a big ko seems worth an experiment. > > > Christoph > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
