From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Strategic computations, expensive games
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:01:14 GMT

In <1992Sep5.123021.1@acad2.alaska.edu> asek@acad2.alaska.edu writes:


>Of course, "go programming theory" is much easier to discuss than
>"go programming practice."  Paradoxically?  GO-GOD #1 vs. GO-GOD #2
>is a trivial problem for the GO-GODs.

>The "best move" may be the "winning move" but there may be six or seven
>"winning moves" from a given position.  So would you say that they are
>all "best moves"?   Seems to me that "best move" implies just one move.

>With six or seven winning moves, any of them are "good moves".


I should define my terminology:

A 'best move' is that move which has no better alternative.
(As opposed to one that has no equal.)

So there are many 'best' moves in almost all circumstances.

In the case of 'playing to win,' all moves which force a win are equal
(unless you wish to win in a minimum number of moves, etc.), so any one
of these moves is the 'best move.'

>It's a restriction on the Game of GO to say that the objective is to win.
>There have been discussions on the pedagogical aspects, teaching, promoting,
>etc., which are all important to the Game of GO.  If the game is not popular
>then the tradition dies, or the players of today (being numbered less)
>have less opportunity to be challenged by the attentions of a field at large.
>I don't believe that it's ultimately useful to characterize GO as simply
>a theoretical problem devoid of any relationship or connection to the
>organization of society, politics, culture and art, etc.  On the other
>hand, one can argue that GO deserves an independent status in order to
>preserve its "purity" (whatever that is).

>To say that the purpose of a game is to win is like saying that the purpose
>of life is to overpopulate the planet or the purpose of politics is to
>acquire power and influence over others (be or worship a King/Queen).  
>It's like saying that the purpose of art is to be stuffed into museums or
>the purpose of biomedicine is to cure all disease and rid the world of risk.
>Perhaps the purpose of religion is to send everybody to heaven or the purpose
>of war is to annihilate the enemy?    In practice, we don't see these purposes
>carried forward with impunity to their absolute conviction.

<smile>  The counter-argument I well expected...
I do not imply that the object of 'the game of GO' is to win...
I merely offer that winning is the object of a single game of GO.  If it
were not the objective, there would be little structure to game play.  I
might as well make any random move as opposed to any other.

But GO encompasses so much more than individual games.  The learning, the
entertainment, the competition, the emotional fulfillment one gets from
fiddling with high-quality pieces while awaiting the move to end all moves...
these go much deeper than merely winning a game.

>A really successful GO program has to do more than win; it must entertain.

[...]

>Children are not going to stay with an instructional program that rips them
>to pieces; they need a guide which will just stay one step ahead and sometimes
>lose, for the sake of encouragement.  It should be a loss that is not obvious
>as a deliberate loss; children are perceptive and will detect when something
>is just being handed to them on the silver platter.  That also loses interest.

[...]

>:=)    'aesop'     asek@acad2.alaska.edu       "    "  -- anon


Here we may split into two schools...

Those who say we should never teach incorrect moves, or risk damaging the
developing skills of the children.  These are the ones who seek prodigies,
and even occasionally find one.

And those who believe we should stay just one stone ahead of the children,
keeping their interest, and demonstrating their growing competence to them.


Perhaps the best program would be one that could learn what the best move
is for itself, and decide which school to adopt as it studies its pupil...

---Xeno