From: asek@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Strategic computations, expensive games
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:58:17 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska


.... " algorithm is a step by step [ process ] "

[ step by step ] games are also " a step by step [ process ]"

generalize by calling them "interactively discrete" and thereby (?)
amenable to treatment by algorithm.

Q.  Is the "best way" the "winning way?" <-- monomaniacal egotism def.

"Best move" meaning (1) choice among six equivalently strong moves
                    (2) illustrative move for discussion purposes
                    (3) weak move to give weaker player encouragement
                    (4) resignation move to indicate resignation (i.e. 1,1).
Which one?

Then, why is the "best way" the "correct way?"   { not obvious }

Correctness definition:  useful, precise, accurate  <-- not sufficient to
                                                        denote morally right.

judgment demanding "external objective" (why not "internal objective?").
                    ^^^^^^^^
                    if it's external it has a better chance to be objective?

Earlier you spoke of something existing without relationship to brain.  Now
you are asking for a referent of the "external objective."  But if you could
earlier speak of something existing without relationship to brain haven't you
found the referent that you were asking?  I put into question whether there
was something without relationship to brain and then you took this to mean
that I was about to propose an alternative "external objective" for judgment.
I think that you didn't consider what the "putting into question" meant.

Then - the final point.  Is there a "best way?" Or the statement:
   No one knows the best way . . .
                                                This is like:
   "You are playing a book opening?  Ok, then I will play 'anti-book'."
                                                Sen Suzuki, 3p  1990

If there *is* an 'anti-book' then what is the book?  Is this entire matter
in the realm of relativism?  Is GO relativistic (i.e. without a "best move"?)
Perhaps the value of komi is 5.2

Notion of "precision" monopolized by mathematics?  Through mathematics do we
necessarily find thought unification and all roads to Rome?  What of the
four principle "schools of mathematics", i.e.:
               (a) constructivism
               (b) intuitionism
               (c) logicism
               (d) positivism
Next, consider (ab), (ac), (ad), (bc), (bd), (cd), (abc), (acd), (abd), (bcd),
(abcd), ~(a), ~(b), ~(c), ~(d), ~(ab), ~(ac), ~(ad), ~(bc), ~(bd), ~(cd), ...
and then mix up the order of things and then consider (e) others and (f) misc
and (g) none of the above and (h) none of the below and (i) something to the
side and (j) nothing to the other side and (k) this right here but not there,
(l) anything but this (m) anything but that, (n) maybe this and maybe that,
(o) definitely this but maybe that (p) between here and there (q) before here
and after there, (r) etc. etc. etc.  King of Siam .

Ah yes, very *precise* eh?  Like a lot of logic adding up to logical confusion?

Belief in mathematics as the all-encompassing, all-embracing wunderkind of
the sciences, Queen of the scullery-sluts....

The tool or just a tool.  Non-mathematical understanding?  Then, of course,
one non-whiff plus two un-whiffs equals three.seven anti-whiffs, like that?
The "ycallaf" (truth but not because of the stated reasons) of the term:
 
                   computational mathematics

"Mathematics" was hazy and so is "computational."  Using a "computer" ?
I have eight-tenths of a Turing Machine.  Do I have a "computer" ?
I can move data around in my wheelbarrow.  Is my shovel an ALU ?  Are the
bricks registers ?

I don't know if there is a "good" way not rendered by precision.  It seems
that most games of equitable challenge also run into the hiatus problem, i.e.,
nothing really positive available but just make sure one doesn't play negative
so when in doubt move a pawn or offer a draw.  Under what circumstances
in the *middle* of a GO game, play a "pass" move?  Late-middle?  Just before
scoring?  At what earliest point is the "pass" feasible?  I mean to sharpen
this.  The "best" move:  is this the move that wins by 43 points or the move
that leads to a win by 3 or 4 points?  Of what consequence is the point
difference in the GO game when the only matter is who was up and who was down?
So, can I play a "pass" move and still win by the minimum instead of something
larger?

Different styles.  Against Player X, Move Z will not be the most effective.
But against Player W, Move Z is going to produce the largest point difference,
good for the ego of that computer program.  And yet, Player X and Player W
have the same AGA rating, but have diverging pattern recognition dispositions.
At what point will my algorithm discover whether it is playing Player X or
Player W ?  The algorithm will want to play Move Q instead of Z if it is
playing Player X, unless of course all emphasis is *not* being placed upon
obtaining the maximizing point-difference in the score, so the algorithm
might not care too much whether it is Move Q or Z.  And, of course, if the
algorithm is conducting a point-difference maximization estimate there is
the problem of making that overplay which fails to consider that perhaps
a stronger position in the long run is obtained by conservatism, and not by
direct *greedy* methods.  I.E.  The program might not be able to take into
account all of the necessary factors to compute a "best" play, but at least
by applying the principle that "maximization" of all of its known factors
does *not* necessarily lead to the "best" play, the program may "intuitively"
be able to arrive at a better move than the "best" move produced by its
point-difference maximization estimation algorithm process function routine.

This is like saying:  "Initially the meaning of that move could not be
understood, but as the game progressed then the deep meaning of that move
made 19 or 31 moves ago, began to make more and more sense until the light
of the rosy dawn beamed its knowledge upon me and I was enlightenend and
awoke from my delusional dreams and felt grateful to the instructional love
sensei provided in such kindness and generosity during these remaining hours
upon the planet prior to imminent transcendence into the afterworld of
nirvana."

P or NP ?

If it is not mathematic is it not understandable?  ( A follow B ? ) or
just this sort of proposition:  A then B?  yes/no  (circle one)
If yes:
If no:
If not circled:
If both circled:
If one circled and the other half-way circled:
If both half-way circled:
If crossed out instead of circled:
If checked instead of crossed out or circled:
etc.
etc.
etc.

If Student G obtains the PhD in Mathematics will the Chess Rating Increase?
If Student H obtains the PhD in Chemistry will the Chess Rating Increase?
If Student F obtains the PhD in Computer Science will the C. Rating Increase?
If Student J obtains the PhD in Comparitive Religion will the C. Rating Incr?
                     etc.
                     etc.
                     etc.
Yes/No
So what is the relevance of a mathematical method against a literary method
or against a musical method or an artistic method or a dishwasher's method
or a floor-waxer's method or a permanent press method or a laundromat method
or a taxi-cab method or a fisherman's method or a farmer's method or a
hunter and gatherer's method or a coal-miner's method?


Again -- why is the "best way" a "winning way" ?  ( Might making right ? )
History only remembers the victors?  No progeny from those under genocide ?


:=:  Serious Serbs Serve Several Situations So Some Slippery Spelunkers Sew
     Sally Sings Sunny Sandstorms Soapy Siblings Senator Saturnalia Sip Seth


.  again  .   write  .  reply  .  send  .  bounce  .  mail  .  forward .

 
Newsgroups: rec.games.go