Don,
I think it is tenuous to predict, much less emphatically assert, that
just because the evidence is linear at the lower scale, it remains so at
higher scales. While it is reasonable to assume, it is not certain. I
see your point that at this time, your theory about it applying to
larger scales has yet to be invalidated. However, this does not
preclude your theory being invalidated in the future. Nor does it make
their intuitions about ways others might be able to do so (and keep an
open mind about creating attempts) as superstitious. It just means they
are yet to be convinced of your position just as you are yet to be
convinced of theirs. Remember, the direct evidence used to support a
theory that the world was flat. That theory was later invalidated and
replaced with a new theory incorporating the old evidence as well as the
new evidence.
And you want other attempting to disprove your theory. It both educates
them on the current theory and challenges and possibly convinces them to
share holding your theory. And it also educates you in the event they
find some error in your approach/assumptions/context/definitions or are
actually able to disprove your conclusion. And it is likely someone
will eventually disprove your theory while keeping the evidence upon
which your theory rests.
I would encourage you to keep your theory (every cycle's sacred, every
cycle's great, if cycle's wasted, God gets quite irate) and work making
assumptions based upon this being true. That's efficient. I would also
encourage others to challenge your theory and work at invalidating your
assumptions around low level efficiencies. Both you, they and
computer_go will be stronger because of it.
Jim
Don Dailey wrote:
Hi Dave,
You are doing it. No matter what evidence is presented, people will
find a way to say it doesn't exist. As I mentioned earlier, the
argument was that didn't apply to chess except for the first 4 or 5 ply
- then when that didn't happen they expanded it to the first 6 or 7 and
to this very day people are denying it - although they are looking more
and more foolish in the process.
We have already seen that this holds in GO, I did a massive study of it
month ago on 9x9 boards and showed everyone this beautiful plot with
straight lines showing the ELO per TIME curve which was essentially flat.
I also remember the response. "ok, it applies to a small boards but
19x19 is a completely different game that bears no resemblance."
So I must give up on this. I know if I do the plot again someone will
say, "it only applies to depths we can currently test." "Surely it
will flatten out next year when the new processors come."
I cannot answer to those arguments when no evidence is presented to back
it up other than superstition of disbelief or my favorite, "the
testimony of experts in the field." I can only say that every bit
of evidence we have backs up what I am saying.
- Don
Dave Dyer wrote:
I agree with your exposition of search as it applies to chess, but
I think there is a qualitative difference in Go.
In chess, evaluators can see clear progress, in the form of material
balance and statically determined positional factors, so each additional
ply gives you more opportunity to see progress.
Until Go evaluators give similarly strong and reliable signals, search
will be a very much weaker tool.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
