On 1/11/2016 7:10 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira wrote:
Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the
aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love
to have a comparison between professional and amateur dan matches,
...
shape
Some time ago, we (with pasky) looked into a related question of player
attribute prediction - such as territoriality, aggresivity, influence
oriented style, or strength. Project website is here:
http://gostyle.j2m.cz/
Imo you can predict/evaluate pretty much anything you get dataset for.
I like the topic of aesthetics in gameplay. I think the focus in
previous studies in chess was more on compositions (artificial
problems) than on actual games, so the question is not whether a
player plays beautifully, but whether a problem is elegant and
beautiful. And they did come up with
On 12 January 2016 at 13:29, Ray Tayek wrote:
> On 1/11/2016 7:10 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira wrote:
>
> Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the
> aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love to
> have a comparison between
And do you find these "ugly yet working" moves aesthetically pleasing?
I think it all depends what do we mean by aesthetics. In my opinion, it is
not strength - the hard thing about go imo is that while the nice (shape,
..) do often work, sometimes, the ugly move works better - precisely as
Nick
I agree that playing strength should not be determinant for Go
aesthetics. Of course obvious mistakes are not pleasant, but I consider
close matches* with either close styles (symmetry) or very different
styles more important. Lopsided or early decided matches with big
captures, handicaps,
Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the
aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love
to have a comparison between professional and amateur dan matches, or
across time periods or players. There are a few papers on aesthetics for
chess so I
Is playing bad moves good for aesthetics? No? Then why call it
aesthetics? Call it perfect / good play. The most "beautiful" stone is
bad if it is dead.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
It's an inherently subjective thought-exercise -- ask 10 different players
and you will get 10 different ideas of what constitutes beauty. I'm not
even sure I agree with the metrics proposed in
http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/computers/2008/26-184.pdf for
chess -- why is it inherently