Convolution neural networks seem to be all the rave (no pun intended)
right now. To me they do seem more intuitive in recreating the process
of a human being recognizing patterns and getting a general feel of the
game, and then focusing on only a few sequences. Maybe they are limited
by the data set, but so is a human being limited by his/her own
experience, so I definitely see space to grow there.
At least one paper from 2014 already used a convolution neural network
in some form of selection guiding policy of new MCTS tree nodes, with
promising results. I'm currently also researching something similar.
On 04/09/2015 23:52, uurtamo . wrote:
Learned rules from pure stats might be good guiding posts, but the
pure checking of millions of board positions is always going to be
necessary.
My $0.02,
s.
On Sep 4, 2015 3:49 PM, "Jim O'Flaherty" <jim.oflaherty...@gmail.com
<mailto:jim.oflaherty...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I disagree with the assertion MC must be the starting point. It
appears to have stagnated into a local optima; i.e. it's going to
take something different to dislodge MC, just like it took MC to
dislodge the traditional approaches preceding MC's introduction a
decade ago. Ultimately, I think it can serve to inform a higher
level conceptual system
And while I don't get his videos (they are way to ADHD scattered
and discontinuous for my personal ability to focus and
internalize), I think I grok the general direction he'd like to
see things head. And I am quite ambivalent about the idea of
creating and using linguistic semantic trees as an approach, as
much or even more than I was about MC when it emerged.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stefan Kaitschick
<stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de
<mailto:stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de>> wrote:
So far I have not criticised but asked questions. I am a great
fan of the expert system approach because a) I have studied go
knowledge a lot and see, in principle, light at the end of the
tunnel, b) I think that "MC + expert system" or "only expert
system" can be better than MC if the expert system is well
designed, c) an expert system can, in principle, provide more
meaningful insight for us human duffers than an MC because the
expert system can express itself in terms of reasoning.
(Disclaimer: There is a good chance that I will criticise
anybody presenting his definitions for use in an expert
system. But who does not dare to be criticised does not learn!)
MC is currently stagnating, so looking at new (or old
discarded) approaches has become more attractive again.
But I don't think that a "classic" rules based system will be
of much use from here. It is just too far removed from MC
concepts to be productively integrated into an MC system. And
no matter what, MC has to be the starting point, because it is
so much more effective than anything else that has been
tried.What you are left to work with, is the trail of
statistics that MC leaves behind. That is the only tunnel with
a possible end to it that I see. And who knows, maybe someone
will find statistical properties that can be usefully mapped
back to human concepts of go.
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
