On undefined, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In some of my pattern learning experiments, I discovered that only a > very small subset of possible patterns occur on the real board, and yet > for a game tree searcher it would be pretty important to understand > those patterns that are "constantly avoided" in order to understand why > they are being avoided. > > That's why I believe that patterns culled from games are pretty much > useless. That probably extends to most learning based on observing > games.
I agree wholeheartedly with your observation, but not with your conclusion. It is undoubtedly true that dan level players foresee, understand and avoid many patterns, but it is also true that many players develop those abilities largely through playing many games of go, as well as studying books and problems. Given that there are collections of tens of thousands of games played by kyu level players as they improve to dan level; given that there are collections of thousands of life and death problems studied by those players to the same end; I see no rational explanation why the lessons leant by humans as they improve (or equivalent lessons expressed computationally) can't be inferred. cheers stuart _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
