Jacques Basaldúa wrote: > Jonas Kahn wrote: > > > I mean, if Crazy Stone played against himself from the position where > > Katsunari was thought to be ahead, would he win with its original > color, > > or with Katsunari's ? > > That is a very big question. I hope it would win with Katsunari's > stones *if* > Katsunari was really ahead. I have been now working for some months in > knowledge extracted from over 50K games played by pros and high dan > players (both players), enough time, no handicap. I don't know for sure > if that was not in vane yet, that's why I write "I hope". I personally have serious doubts about knowledge extraction from human games, but I hope you have success. I think you can get more from computer games of strong players even though the level is weaker. Here is why I say that:
1. A strong computer still plays a lot of good moves - so the delta between human and computer games is not as high as you think. 2. A certain consistency in computer games that humans don't possess. 3. You have access to the internals, such as a score that quantifies moves. I still believe however there is something to be learned from these games - I want to see how your research comes out. You will let us know? > > I certainly don't have a high opinion on any of the strong program's > fuseki. > These programs are not strong for their fuseki, I think, they are > strong for > many reasons and their fuseki is not really as bad as it looks. But I > guess > there is a lot of margin for improvement there. > > After the success of MC based programs some people argue that > computers should play intrinsically different from humans and that > computer play is superior. Who ever said that? Clearly humans are still superior - no question. As far as playing differently, every non-trivial game playing entity has it's own unique style but as a class there are clear differences. I don't think that matters, it's possible to be equally strong and have a much different style, even between 2 perfect playing entities. If computers really get strong, they will be strong for different reasons than humans and I suspect humans will still perceive them as weaker because we judge strength mostly on how well it does things WE do well, not how well it does other things better. The most typical example is that rarely does someone judge the strength of a computer on it's low blunder rate. People don't even judge their own strength based on their blunder rate - they just slap themselves and pass it off as a fluke that should "never happen" and doesn't have anything to do with their skill as a player or their ability to win. We like to ignore what seems like "noise." > I don't share that opinion. I think that all > what humans have elaborated on fuseki makes a lot of sense, when > you apply it, you improve a lot. I don't see a reason why that would > not apply to computers. Clearly humans play better in the opening from everything I've seen and read about this. - Don > > Jacques. > _______________________________________________ > 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/
