-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Steve,
So this doesn't get too lengthy I'll remove the stuff I'm not responding to. >> I think this statement is more or less true. Didn't you see the >> scalability data for 19x19? In fact didn't you help me produce it? > > we tested some very low ELO ranges. speculating about how that > scales up to the "upper stratosphere" of ELO is pretty difficult for > me. it wasn't straight enough for me to believe that it doesn't go > "log" at some point nearby and start to cripple the doubling of cpu > advantage. But why would it suddenly go "log" at some point nearby? This is the same superstition people had in computer chess for decades! Everyone had this gut feeling based on nothing whatsoever. > in the sense that 19x19 is still brutally difficult, and that these > methods haven't improved the state of the art by more than a stone > or two, if that. so we should definitely not extrapolate, or expect > them to perform, any better than we already have evidence for. What do you consider evidence? If every doubling so far has yielded the same approximate improvement then I would say the evidence is pretty good that the next one will. I guess you believe there is no evidence the next one will? > i agree that on smaller boards UCT-type programs are superior. > without trying too hard to sound like an apologist/traditionalist, i will > mention that > boardsize isn't merely a "scaling factor" in this problem. things change > in a fundamental way inbetween 9x9 and 19x19 that direct search can't > recognize. (this is essentially what monte carlo methods are doing, as > they are somewhat carefully sampling from the move distribution). >> I'm sure some will believe this observed scalability is short lived but >> I know of no reason to believe that other than superstition. > > i hate to do this, but i'll give you an analogy that i think is relevant. > if you crawl at 1/2 mph across the desert for 7 years, encounter a > tiny hill, and manage to scale it, you may say to yourself that you've > made a massive accomplishment. and you have. but it doesn't > imply, entail, or otherwise suggest that all future obstacles will be > of similar size. > > honestly, 9x9 doesn't even leave *room* for some of the important > problems that are critical on a 19x19 board. those problems don't exist on > a small board because it's a full-on tactical fight from the get-go. this > is a different kind of problem than being willing to trade 40% of the board > for a 51% likelihood of getting 41% of the board in exchange. 9x9 is > about getting a 100% likelihood of winning as soon as possible. Everyone likes to romanticize this fact. Of course there are a lot of differences but that has nothing to do with how scalable the problem is. All you are really saying is that it's more difficult and complicated - that is totally unrelated to scalability. These conceptual hills are not barriers, they are hills. These same barriers were imagined to exist in computer chess too. Many masters criticized the nature of search and said computers would never be able to do long term planning and this was certain to create a sudden standstill and it was "just around the corner" always. But it never happened. What DID happen is that there were always some hills the computer couldn't climb over and there still are, but it had nothing to do with their improvement rate. Your fallacy is that you believe the landscape is relatively smooth, but with some monster unscaleable hill just out of sight. The truth is there are many different hills of all different sizes. Each improvement will enable the program to climb over one or two it couldn't before. That's really how you should be thinking of this. There is no wall around the corner. >> That's why I believe a super hardware gizmo could easily be built that >> would be in the DAN range somewhere at 19x19, at least low Dan. I'm >> not so bold as to predict that it will be at top human levels any time >> soon though. > > i think that we're likely in agreement here. crazy hardware could get you > into > the 1 dan range, but professional play is way, way out of bounds at this > point. > to see why i think this, watch a 7d game on kgs and listen to the 1d kibitz. > note how ridiculously out-of-touch they are with the game that is going on > in front of them. pro play is yet another magnitude or two of "out of touch" > from > amateur play. I think professional play is a long way off too. But I also believe this is romanticized too much. As I gradually became better at chess I learned that a lot of concepts were just barely out of reach and not really that big a deal. With just a little extra understanding a profound move becomes rather simple but if you don't understand it it seems like magic. Great players have a LOT of these and we look at their games and imagine them to be gods. - - Don > > s. > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who > knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433 > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHDuybDsOllbwnSikRAtURAJ9h36+D4GVslJjFToE5mnLE15gN0gCfb5j7 Aso/3/mZrA7YKD4O9IPPbuc= =//AV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
