It's an inherently subjective thought-exercise -- ask 10 different players and you will get 10 different ideas of what constitutes beauty. I'm not even sure I agree with the metrics proposed in http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/computers/2008/26-184.pdf for chess -- why is it inherently more "beautiful" to use a weaker piece as opposed to a stronger piece?
In go, there are a lot of characteristics that exist on a continuum (e.g. aggression vs. calm/steady, etc.) Play at either end of the spectrum has its own appeal. Metrics one could analyze: -Willingness to tenuki -Ability to maintain sente -Tenacity of attack (how to measure?) -Efficiency of shape (how to measure?) -Favoring influence vs. territory -Preference for invasion vs. reduction etc. One would do better to analyze a given player over many games, vs. just looking at one game (since there is such variability). On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira <go...@sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the > aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love to > have a comparison between professional and amateur dan matches, or across > time periods or players. There are a few papers on aesthetics for chess so > I don't see why not Go. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to make, after > deciding on the things to look for. I'd like to kickstart this discussion. > > For reference: > Advanced Computer Recognition of Aesthetics in the Game of Chess by Azlan > Iqbal and Mashkuri Yaacob > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
