Jim, When we say "God" we really mean "omniscient player" and I don't attach any omniscience other than pure GO skill. It's just a convenient way of saying this, but it is misleading because it conjures up some of the factors you mention.
> Finally, what is an objectively best move? That's easy. I already defined it but there were some flaws in my previous definitions. Let me try to be more explicit: A) In any given position there are 2 kinds of moves available - good and bad. B) A "good" move is any move that with perfect play leads to your maximum expected territory score. A bad move is ALL the other moves. In this definition, komi doesn't matter, nor does win or loss matter. You just want to play a GOOD move and there may be more than 1 available - any move that leads to the best you can hope for at this point in the game given perfect play. Please note: there are many positions were ALL moves are "good" moves, such as when it's inevitable that you will lose the whole board in Chinese scoring. They are all equal because you lose the whole board - but there are no WORSE moves so by definition these are still considered "good." An omniscient player doesn't have feelings or emotions and is always happy to play a "good" move because a good move is always available, even in the worst positions. This is slightly counter-intuitive. I'm just defining a bad move as any move that is non-optimal. I think this is the best way to reason about this kind of thing. As humans we tend to think in very subjective terms that are not accurate from an omniscient players point of view, stuff like, "e14 was slightly better", etc. In GO we might get away with this a bit. The move you played might win by 4 stones and e14 may win by 5 stones, so we might get away with saying it's "e14 is slightly better" but 1 stone makes it a LOT better in my opinion. An omniscient player is a bean counter and a binary thinker - if it's not the very best possible move it sucks. However in chess, there is no way to claim one move is slightly better than another without moving to the subjective human arena. A move is either GOOD or it's NOT. Of course when we use this "inaccurate" terminology we really mean that we expect it to give the opponent more difficulty - but such considerations are not interesting to an omniscient player unless he is a "devil" I think GO would be more exciting if view in this way even though it doesn't work well with Monte Carlo. Instead of worrying about "komi" and win or lose we should play any match as a pair of games, one for each color, and sum the total scores. This would make this terminology more intuitive too - because then a single "bad" move against an omniscient player would guarantee a loss. However it might be forgivable if Komi is set wrong in a single game. - Don On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 12:41 -0800, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote: > Don (and others), > > Depending upon your definition of God, I think most of the "God" > conversation is kind of silly. > > Given He is omnipotent, he has the ability to alter one of His created > entities such that it is not possible to beat Him PRIOR to casting His > reply as white. The alteration could be as subtle as changing the > active potential on some sub-set of neurons in his opponents brain or > as acute as creating deep anxiety within his opponent's psyche by > being so gargantuan in physical presence. And talk about self-esteem. > Hard to top God's opinion of Himself give you are one of His > creations. > > Give He is omniscient, he has no need for generating confusion for His > opponent. He already knows his opponents weakness, how it will > manifest and why it will do so. That's assuming an omniscient being > has any "interest" in casting a stone in the first place, something > very difficult to imagine in any sense of the meaning of the words. > > Given he is omnipresent, he is has/is/will be in a part of the > universe where an animation of the game about to be played is already > playing out to completion, so he can see how it ends before it begins > (a slight lean on his omniscience here). Better, the game he is > watching is on a board made of harp strings and with the stones > represented by fairies and unicorns. Hey! When your God, you get to > make up all sorts of crazy shite. > > Finally, what is an objectively best move? How would one measure it? > It's as if there was some "God knowable" state transition diagram > (STD) describing an starting go board where the entry points to the > STD (OMG, the sexual references here abound) mostly show black to win. > So of that set of initial black moves that perfectly state transition > into wins for black, which is objectively superior to the other? The > question itself is poorly framed? The moves are all peers. None is > superior to the other "win in n moves" candidates, even if their n's > vary. The n's only matter if there is some higher value placed on > minimizing the number of moves from start to finish. Give He is > timeless, the length of game, hence the value of n, is not meaningful. > > Now, if God had a younger brother who liked to play Go...none of what > I said above means anything....which is still true even if He doesn't. > (a nod to your "logic" dialog from the other day, Don) > > > Jim > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org> > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:59:30 AM > Subject: Re: [computer-go] .. if Monte-Carlo programs would play > infinitestrong > > A good point to consider - is "God" actively trying to confuse his > opponent and complicate things, or is he simply playing objectively > best > moves? > > - Don > > On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 07:39 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote: > > > >wow. i thought that there were at least two > > > >stones worth of slack in the opening, and another > > > >two in ko fighting. :) > > > > > > Seems unlikely. I can't imagine two competent > > > players, say 1p or > > > better, coming out of the opening with one of them > > > having a two-stone > > > lead. > > > > one of them is not a competent 1p. one of them > > is a computer with knowledge of the end result > > of all possible game trees (my understanding of > > the definition of a "god" player). > > > > it could, for instance, create an opening whose > > branches are so complicated that W (or B) was > > forced to take small gains territorially, but > > lose, say, 20 pts. by the midgame. > > > > > And, the right to win all ko fights without > > > having to fight them > > > is only worth half a stone. > > > > uh, that depends upon what the kos are for. > > > > s. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > Sponsored Link > > > > $420k for $1,399/mo. > > Think You Pay Too Much For Your Mortgage? > > Find Out! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre > > _______________________________________________ > > computer-go mailing list > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
