On 4/7/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of what learning purpose is it if you are losing the game and the computer gets you to focus on a dramatic battle somewhere that is totally irelevant?
I think the issue is that once the computer has a won position, all moves seem almost equally irrelevant, so the computer plays randomly. Ideally the other player would also understand the position and resign, but if the other player doesn't understand, then ideally the computer should clarify by playing moves that demonstrate the strength of the position. That doesn't mean playing randomly or getting into irrelevant battles (unless the other player needs to play something out to see it). It does means showing the strength of the stones already on the board in a way that the other player will understand, in a minimum number of moves. But that's hard because clarity isn't something that's just a consequence of the game rules; it also requires some sort of knowledge of how humans understand Go. It seems like something to take on after the main challenge is solved. Perhaps using Japanese rules would be a step in this direction since they discourage play whose irrelevance is more apparent to humans, making it more likely that the computer will make a clarifying move. Although I suppose that, if you know a little about how a computer opponent works, random play can be taken as an indication that it thinks the game is over. Perhaps it's a matter of humans understanding better what the computer is saying. Although, recognizing that the computer thinks the game is over and understanding why are two different things.
And go really is all about that - knowing what is really important and what is not and I would rather learn from a player who demonstrates that to me.
Well, yes. - Brian _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
