On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 20:16 -0600, Matt Gokey wrote: > Don Dailey wrote: > > You are still missing the point. > I can say the same of you. > > I merely am raising a question about the assertion that doubling of > _human_ thinking time results in _linear_ improvements. I am not > claiming that there is no improvement - never have. I am not claiming > that every turn must produce better results to improve overall play - > never have. However I am trying to explain a rationale for the > possibility that improvements may not be linear based on the nature of Go.
It's possible, but I think my curve (it is a curve, it gradually tapers off as you get closer to perfection which is an obvious limit) holds in all non-trivial games of perfect information. The curve may have a different shape or slope but it's there. It's already easy to produce in computer go despite a reluctance by many (not you of course) to admit it. My sense is that many on this group want to believe that we just happen to be at the top of the curve but that it immediately falls off. There is no rational reason to believe that other than superstition. > > What you are describing looks great on paper, but that's now how > > the extra time works. Even if you are given 10X more time, the > > benefit will come from not from suddenly being able to grasp master > > level concepts, but from repairing the little mundane problems > > that are just within your reach. > How do you know this? Improvements could come from many other different > sources. I thought I was being generous. I do believe 10 or 20x is enough time to produce a lot of mini-conceptual breakthroughs. But I know from my experience in game programming that most of the improvement comes from fixing all the misconceptions that 1 less ply couldn't see. When I was young and naive about computer chess, I couldn't understand why going from 5 to 6 ply was almost as good as going from 3 to 4 ply, but it's clearly the case. A lot of very strong players never got over this type of incorrect thinking - they only focused on what a computer COULDN'T do with only 1 extra ply (or double the time.) > > > > And it will only effect a small number of moves. Most of the > > moves will be exactly as you say, confusing, and you will not be > > able to improve them (and I think this is the partly the source > > of what I consider the misconception some of us are having.) > I don't have this "misconception". I basically agree with this and > don't think I said anything explicitly contradictory to this. That's why I used the terminology "some of us", I would have said "you are having" if I thought it was your stance. > > > > The other source of the misconception you also touched on. You > > mentioned "enormous extra time", which is correct. It DOES INDEED > > require enormous extra time, even in computer chess to make > > anything more than a modest improvement. The reason you just > > can't imagine that "a lot" of extra time will help you play a > > better move is because most of the time it won't! Your > > intuition is correct but your conclusion is incorrect. > You are putting words into my posts. As I said several times already I > am not claiming extra time won't help improve play. Of course it will. > You are not listening to my conclusion. Step back and re-read my > posts. I don't claim my writing to be of super clarity and I might not > be explaining myself well enough, but why not try to keep an open mind > and not make assumptions about things I didn't write. To an extent I admit that I was putting words in your mouth. I was in the mode where I was responding to the group as a whole even though I was really addressing you more specifically. You never said, "you can't imagine that a lot of extra time would help" so I apologize for being so loose with this. > > The improvement will come only from little mundane improvements > > of a very small number of moves - but that is enough to make > > your level of play go up a bit. > Yes and improvement may also come from other insights as well. I agree, but for a modest amount of extra time, to be frank, you will be making far less errors and still playing pretty much the same perhaps with a few exceptions. With a LOT of extra time I believe you will be having insights and really "finding" a few nice moves. I believe go is rich in opportunities to do this, and I completely disagree with those that feel the game is closed beyond what you can quickly recognize and there is no scope to discover interesting things because it's just too complicated and confusing. > > Please note that for weak players, a LOT of moves need to be > > improved, and for strong players only a few need to be improved. > > But the way this works is that the stronger you get, the > > more impact improving just a few moves makes because your > > opponent is more likely to take advantage of your mistakes. > Sounds reasonable. > > > > Someone once did a computer chess experiment with really long > > and deep searches and they studied how often computers "changed > > their minds" when making moves. As it turns out, the rate > > of change (per ply or per doubling) tapers off as you go deeper > > and deeper. And yet the strength improvement is almost > > the same for each doubling. > But I' not talking about computers or chess. I think there is already a > consensus that the doubling rule holds well in chess. You don't have to > continue to convince me of that. But it holds in computer go too - I think what has been the most controversial is my assertion that HUMANS have a very similar curve. Furthermore I think it's more pronounced than in computers. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
