Hello. Just my grain of salt : I think it is relevant to consider strength as a a function of time AND board size. I have the feeling that, for humans, board size doesnt matter very much, whereas for computers, depending on the algorithm they use, it can be an extremely important factor. The reason would be that human are very good at breaking the board, mentaly, into mostly unrelated areas. However, if you take for example a computer programm that does straight UCT (global UCT, with no sub-areas), then i believe it can not scale well when board size increases. Because the branching would factor increase proportinaly to the size of the board, and therefore the computation time for an equivalent search deapth will increase exponentialy. Any thoughts ?
----- Message d'origine ---- De : Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> À : Nick Apperson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc : computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org> Envoyé le : Vendredi, 26 Janvier 2007, 14h10mn 08s Objet : Re: [computer-go] an idea... computer go program's rank vs time On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 02:41 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote: > I am not trying to say that you don't know what you are talking about, > but how are you so sure that we must be on the linear part of the > curve? Based on what you said, I estimate your ideal (non empirical) > formula to be something like the following: > > S = P * (1 - e^-kt) > > where S is skill level and P is perfect play and k is some constant > specific to the game. In fact this is an ideal formula that should > apply given the reasonable assumption that the chance of reading one > unit of skill is proportional to the amount of time taken and the > amount left to be seen. This makes sense assuming a very specific > distribution of the difficulties of different items that can be seen. > That distrobution would have to have all units capable of being seen > as equally likely to be seen. I think this could be a good > theoretical model. > > > Anyway, I would like to see you make more specific claims with formula > and justifications for them. Vague statements about linear > relationships that taper off and how we are clearly not anywhere near > the top help nobody. You seem to know a lot about this. I would > appreciate it if you would share your reasoning. You seem pretty > skeptical of intuition. So, what is the reason you believe these > things about go? Here is why I feel as I do and where I think the burden of proof is: All computer games of perfect information that I am aware of follow this curve. Chess, checkers, Armimaa, Othello, Go and others. So it seems to have nothing to do with the branching factor of the game. This curve is shown to also be true (even more-so) in HUMAN play, at least in Chess and anywhere from a fraction of a second per move to postal chess. >From a perfectly logical point of view, what is the most reasonable conclusion to come to about this? Furthermore, I have anecdotal evidence (which you should always be skeptical of but I present nonetheless) that strong human players are not good judges in these matters because their ego's are involved. In Chess, there were some more humble players who understood the curve right away but they were the minority. In short, strong players will generally take the point of view that their game is not subject to mere computation, but to skill which only they possess. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___________________________________________________________________________ Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses http://fr.answers.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
