Exactly verbalized rules lose to pure analysis power. Though much chess intuiton is coded into evaluation function. Buiding analysis trees to alfa-beta pruning BUT in quite differently human woudl do it, just basic idea/ideas are there.
Human intuition is trained with endless repetition. Like IM Jeremy Silman who went through about hundred games a night while teenager (quite a feat on actual board) to 'train' his pattern matcher. I do doubt if anyone coudl codifly that information in fully transferrable way at all. In teacher-pupil interaction somehow. But as an book, noway. Hard to say what chess IM is go terms but whole chess Grand master to Master ranks are within 300 elopoints-. And in upper echelons one Dan rank is about 250-300 elopoints so IM woudl strongish 6dan perhaps , not quite 7dan. So 4dan is way better than what I can drema of but still is chess ranks that woudl be a like Elo 2000 a good player but no way near a master. So I woudl say that the old way, how ever tedious and non-analytical is still required to reach the top of game. But then again teaching method to quickly reach a reasonable strength is certainly needed. Mayre robert has it, do not know as have not tried 2017-10-28 1:39 GMT+03:00 uurtamo . <uurt...@gmail.com>: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
