Mark Boon: <4ec4bc46-e52f-4ac2-a7ff-edaf17de3...@gmail.com>: >On Oct 27, 2009, at 3:39 AM, Hideki Kato wrote: > >> I strongly believe that such patterns must not be only spatial >> (static) but also temporal, ie, dynamic or sequence of pattens which >> allow the player quickly remember the results of local fights or >> L&D. > >I think that's exactly right. At least for humans. Maybe for computers >there's another way.
That could be a challenging problem in this century... >After reading On Intelligence (anyone follow my advice and read it?) I bought (:-) English version and read Japanese one immediate after their publish. IMHO, Jeff's idea is still very interesting while the implementation by the staff in Numenta have been going to not right direction. More generalized version of his idea could be that Cerebral cortex works to reduce temporal error similar to visual cortex but spatial error. >I >got to thinking the human brain possibly does a lot of little playouts >in parallel. Not random, whole-board playouts from beginning to end, >but short, local playouts, following strong patterns at each choice. >Each time the result is fed back into the first layer so that the >result of this playout gets used to guide the next playout. And the >variance of the outcome of each of these playouts gets fed into the >next layer to recognise higher-level concepts. Maybe for a few levels >until it reaches a conscious level. Those playouts are done in Cerebellum using some associative memory, I beleive. Then the mechanism, how to communicate with Cerebral, is a mistery, assuming some kind of tree search is done in Cerebral. >The reason why thinking longer only helps marginally is that these >small playouts follow a limited set of patterns. It takes time and >practice to add these patterns, you can't easily consciously add a >pattern in there during the game. Agree. >So 'thinking' is restricted to a higher level, trying to think steps >ahead in the game. Obviously this helps a lot for strength too, and >pros are very good at that too. But with each stone you read ahead it >becomes harder for your brain to do the pattern-matching because it >doesn't have the complete (visual) input. So humans tend to think >ahead in rather fixed sequences along the lines of play in the >patterns that are followed sub-consciously. So when Sakata claimed he >can read ahead 30 moves in a blink, he doesn't do a search of lots of >possibilities. Instead, his brain is able to do these little playouts >a lot deeper than mere mortals can. Most likely the main candidates >all come up in the first (split) second. The rest of the time he >spends verifying their results. The games in last Meijin-sen in Japan, Iyama vs Cho, may support your thought. >This is all rather speculative of course. Christian Nentwich is right >that it would be nice if we could measure this somehow. That's going >to be difficult. But it shows a bit why I have the opinion that I have. BTW, recently I've measured the strength (win rate) vs time for a move curves with Zen vs GNU Go and Zen vs Zen (self-play) on 19 x 19 board. Without opening book, it saturates between +400 and +500 Elo against GNU but doesn't upto +800 Elo in self-play. That's somewhat interesting (detail will be open soon at GPW-2009). Hideki -- g...@nue.ci.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Kato) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
