From: asek@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: Real world analogies to the Real World
Organization: University of Alaska
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:10:21 GMT


Seems very serious to be speaking of real-world analogies to games.
Hubble's Constant:  if the universe is continually expanding how can
we think that 4D light curvatures are going to re-iterate after 15 or
30 billion years?   If the mind plays some part in "evolution" (I mean
the "free-will" mind and not the deterministically-inclined "free" mind).
then there really is no precedent for what we are seeing here and now.
Seems that if we watch children at play (or attempt to recall childhood)
there's a perception of everything being new.

Here was a discussion about "revisionism vs. factualism" in GO (regarding
the analogy to paratroopers).  Perhaps we'd rather think of darts?  Now
darts (such as in archery or spears and blowguns) seems quite old enough.

In regards how discoveries are couched into the nomenclature:  Of course
there was "gravity" prior to Isaac Newton's physics of gravity.  There was
nuclear energy and mass-energy transfer prior to Einstein's formulation of
the famous formula.  These things all -exist- long before we find history
paying attention to them.  The latent idea, waiting to be born, existed.

It is similar with our discovery of mathematical theorems, some of them
profound and others apparently trivial once the intrinsic mechanism is laid
bare.  PI has always been PI (we think) and, as a constant, hasn't been
changing much (unless you start thinking of a "relativistic" PI on a rapidly
spinning disk).  All of these phenomena may or may not interrelate.  They
were all part of some vast family long ago, say some.  Or maybe they were
never all together as a part of a vast family and originated each from their
separate independent lonely sources.  

There was an idea to play a game.  There were also ambitions to make a show
of power and through confrontation estalish some point of vanity -- shinier
hair -- bolder than bold.  The bighorn sheep ramming each other for a prize.
King of the Mountain or Master of the Harem -- who knows what it's all for?
(Hey it's one -- two -- three -- what are we fighting for?)

It's very interesting to speculate on the qualities of "abstraction" in
these games -- GO & Chess.  I'd like to ask how one can establish which is
more "abstract" than the other?  Is an apple more "round" than an orange?
Sure computers have more "difficulty" playing strong GO than strong Chess.
What does that indicate?  Pit the GO master against the Chess master in a
game of tennis.  So who wins?

As one of many "arts" of Asia, GO seemed to be important alongside Tea
Ceremony, Buddhist Meditation, Swordfighting, Calligraphy, Literature and
Philosophy.  Is GO more beautiful than a poem?  How does one establish such
notions?  Why are these comparisons interesting?

Everybody brings something to this newsgroup.  Since the USENET is computer
community oriented, there is a focus to pursue machine-applications to the
onerus task of programming GO, maybe using artificial intelligence if need be.
A bunch of kludgy little methods, non-linear regressions, correlations,
statistical hypothesis, topological methods, number theory, recognition of
patterns, measurements of this 'n that.  Simulated annealing, cryptanalysis,
wiff 'n poof, bubble bubble toil and trouble.  

Revisionism in history claims that things as we were told aren't that way at
all.  Oswald Spengler depicted an entirely novel (maybe) way of describing
the events of Western Civilization, in terms of the civilization's concept
of number.  The old facts aren't quite so brilliant as the newer facts.
Imagination is a key -- one can sense those diamonds in the rough that stir
fresh imagination.  Maybe there is a struggle within between the quest for
imaginative "solution" vs. the anathema of lobotomized rehash.

If it "works" no matter how crazy, then as a theory it is more accurate to
the requisites of a strong GO-playing program.  Computers have enabled us
a secured footing on long-winded strings of algorithmic cadences.  Who cares
how cumbersome or inelegant an approach appears to be if it generates results
that defeat the previously simple initial attempts?  I think there has been
some success in promoting the attention (within the computing community) on
potential spin-offs from Computer-GO research, just as the desire to build a
Chess-playing machine led, in part, to the development of new chips and design
improvements (parallel processing, alpha-beta).

One can appreciate any kind of game if one appreciates the opponent player.
Chess is popular because I can make money at Chess, while GO has yet to
catch fire as a money-making opportunity (at least in the United States).
There is absolutely nothing to stop Westerners from learning Shogi -- in fact
it is enjoyable to acquire identification of Chinese Characters on the pieces -
and if a game seems replete with unusual types of pieces and moves we have 
only to point to the history of Western Chess itself which exhibited many
variants before finding an International Standard in its present form.  

In descending to the language of programming or assembly code, all of these
games share similarities.  Techniques may vary, but we are still immersed
with stacks, queues, arrays, pointers, subroutines and functions, hardware,
interactive terminal interfaces, graphics display systems, and copyright. :-)

That's why I hope this newsgroup continues to prosper.  A wind which blows on
embers will rekindle imagination with solution-oriented perspectives.  Don't
dwell upon the barricades and obstacles.  Seek the high road.  The way is
no way; there's no way to the way.

Good luck grasshopper ...

:=:







Newsgroups: rec.games.go