By way of comparison. It would be ludicrous to ask a world champion chess player to explain their strategy in a "programmable" way. it would certainly result in a player much worse than the best computer player, if it were to be coded up, even if you spent 40 years decoding intuition, etc, and got it exactly correct.
Why do I say this? Because the best human player will lose > 90% of the time against the best computer player. And they understand their own intuition fairly well. Do we want to sit down and analyze the best human player's intuition? Perhaps. But certainly not to improve the best computer player. It can already crush all humans at pretty much every strength. s. On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote: > On 27.10.2017 13:58, Petri Pitkanen wrote: > >> doubt that your theory is any better than some competing ones. >> > > For some specialised topics, it is evident that my theory is better or > belongs to the few applicable theories (often by other amateur-player > researchers) worth considering. > > For a broad sense of "covering every aspect of go theory", I ask: what > competing theories? E.g., take verbal theory teaching by professional > players and they say, e.g., "Follow the natural flow of the game". I have > heard this for decades but still do not have the slightest idea what it > might mean. It assumes meaning only if I replace it by my theory. Or they > say: "Respect the beauty of shapes!" I have no idea what this means. > > A few particular professional players have reasonable theories on specific > topics and resembling methodical approach occurring in my theories. > > So what competing theories do you mean? > > The heritage of professional shape examples? If you want to call that > theory. > > As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different >> framework. >> > > Yes, but where do they describe it? Almost all professional players I have > asked to explain their decision-making have said that they could not > because it would be intuition. A framework that is NOT theory. > > > -- > robert jasiek > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
