Re: The guy who stopped Go Programming Development ...

On Jul 28, 3:59 am, "Frank de Groot" <fr...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On the contrary.
Programmers use the term Brute Force to designate heavy number crunching
WHILST playing, not BEFORE playing.

Right.

Furthermore, I did not make a Go program, I made a pattern study tool for
people who are interested in Fuseki, Joseki and Shape.
This was a detour from a Go program (to fund its development).

A matter of semantics. You know your program can make predictions on
where a pro will move; thats shorthand for saying it can play go.

just running through millions if not billions of patterns looking
for
the best match.

Not at all.
The pattern system only sees identical matches.

So in other words...

A noble effort but, this reduces to an approximation
of a move tree, doesn't it? I mean, of course it does.

Don't use terminology when you are at a loss as to what it means.
No, it does not in the least.

Actually it does. You're making exact matches. This is by defenition
looking up where to move in a move tree. It's just that you've trimmed
your move tree by restricting the area from which a match can occurr.
Therefore your (you cut this part) search box isn't big enough. But
basically, you're dealing with a move tree :)

The sloppiness with which you use language makes it impossible to argue with
you about anything more complex than what's for breakfast.

Well, if by this you mean that I'm generally correct and you're angry
because you can't find a real fault with what I'm saying - I accept.
There's no *need* to argue, is there?

but that's the key, isn't it frank - not how you select the move but
how you evaluate it. Therein lies the real problem with computer go.

Thanks for teaching me about the real problem with comp. Go, Mr. ***
Talking Idiot :-)
One wonders why you got that title?

Well, let's find out shall we? a) Your program is basically a brute
force lookup of a move tree; this much is blatantly obvious, but you
deny it and call me... a *** talking idiot.

b) A well-known that the weakness of computer go playing programs is
not because they can't read, but because they can't evaluate the
positions they come up with. Yet you make fun of me when I explain
this to you and call me.... a *** talking idiot.

c) (from a long time ago) I prove to you that Java is essentially as
fast (i.e. no longer an order of magnitude and actually within say 10%
nowadays, I believe) and you call me... a *** talking idiot.

So lets see. where did I get the title? From you frank.

You're the only one here that ever bothers to call me that.

One wonders why.

A non-go player hoping to program this kind of evaluational knowledge
will be at a loss, because he doesn't know how to do it. It has
nothing to do with finding moves and more about calculating the score
more accurately.

You are just as big a schlemiel as those who said that computers would never
be able to play Chess properly.
A big mouth but a small brain.

It's true - how do you expect to program knowledge you don't know
yourself? Monte carlo? Well, it works great for 7x7 and smaller, I
guess...

I'll give you an example, frank.

Why don't you take a hike, you jobless parasite.

Making stuff up about people again?

- you might say this is childs play for a pro. For a computer to do
this based on your algorithm or based on brute force isn't just
unlikely - again, it's physically impossible.

You are just as big a schlemiel as those who said that computers would never
be able to play Chess properly.
A big mouth but a small brain.

At this point you are clearly being unreasonable. It's because of crap
like this that you're not taken seriously, Frank.

-

p.s.

You are like the losers who criticized the Montgolfier/Wright dudes.
Pity that rifraff like you is nowhere to be found when they've been proven
full of hot air.

I don't know who those people are, but if I criticized them and then
they were proven full of hot air, I don't get why I would be nowhere
to be found. Please try to make sense frank... you're much more
interesting when you make sense.

.