Ho can I find Go vids on youtube? Searching for "go" obviously does nothing.
On 10/12/07, steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Steve, > > > > So this doesn't get too lengthy I'll remove the stuff I'm not responding > > to. > > no problem. > > > 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. > > well, every continuous function is well-approximated by a linear function > at a small enough scale, right? so we should expect to see linearity > over a reasonably small range. if we don't know the function and don't > have datapoints from anywhere other than the beginning of the function, > we can't really say much about datapoints at the end of the function, much > less guess the function itself. > > having sparse datapoints from all over the function would give more > information > than having really detailed datapoints at the "easy" end of the function. > unfortunately, it's really difficult to get datapoints further down the > function. > so i'm not sure that we can extrapolate from one end of the function to the > other. that's all. > > in a physics experiment you sample from all over the range where you think > that your fitting function is appropriate. it would be unreasonable to sample > from one end and make claims about the other end. > > the number of doublings is relevant here as well -- the valid human ELO > range in chess is quite a bit smaller than the same for go. we can obtain > datapoints from all over the chess ELO range. we don't have the same for go. > > > 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 a good point -- any incremental gain in strength may be by > having the ability to solve a completely different class of subproblems > (described in a completely different way) in the game than the ones that > humans try to solve. > > > 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. > > it's true that people are quite falliable -- i think that someone recently > posted on the list (with youtube video) an example of a big group being in > atari in a professional game and one of the two players not noticing. > this is the kind of error that would simply be impossible for any program > that can count liberties. > > s. > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, > news, photos & more. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > _______________________________________________ > 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/
