| |
BGonline.org Forums
Reasons: Malcolm Davis' view and some chaos theory
Posted By: Klaus Evers In Response To: Rollout: Several different plays here... (Timothy Chow)
Date: Friday, 28 May 2010, at 9:01 p.m.
that I think it's quite "dangerous" to think along the lines of "now that I see the rollout it is obvious that Play A is best because of Reason X." If it really were so obvious that Play A is best because of Reason X, then wouldn't this be obvious before seeing the rollout? The rollout has only told you, "The bot thinks Play A is best." The rollout has not given you any reasons, nor does it even tell you that Play A really is best, because the bot might be wrong. Furthermore, even if Play A really is best, it might not be because of Reason X but because of Reason Y. What's likely going on is that you're just being intimidated by the bot and coming up with ex post facto rationalizations of why the bot must be right. Since the only function of the rationalization is to justify the bot, it doesn't matter whether the rationalization is true as long as it supports the bot's preference
Great point Tim.
In BG Praxis Malcolm says:
If I knew why I make the plays I make I would feel better, but I don't.
I just really have to play enough so that it looks right to me and I do it, you know. I have noticed years ago that good players who are well intentioned and honest and talented and knowledgeable would give me reasons and the reasons just turned out not to be right.
The only thing I could do any better was just not give reasons. I hate to give them if I am not pretty sure they're right.
Great point Malcolm ;-)
Well from my own experience, I often make a play that looks right, and that I am doing because I just try to simulate a bot (I have no idea about good reasons or arguments for that play. I see as many arguments for the other play also). I make a play just because I think this is similar to many other positions I ve seen before where gnu makes this move. Basically, I don't know what I am doing and I know it.
To my surprise, I am often right with that play/approach.
Well, then again I make plays where I have strong arguments and I am sure my play is best.
To my disappointment, it is very often not so.
Conclusion? All my good and bad moves are just random noise? Don't think, just play and immitate a bot? Flat pattern learning?
I think the approach of cause and effect works pretty well in our real world day in day out experience and in science too. But it does not in BG because the details are just too tiny and too many and can not be easily considered with the correct weights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Well, what I am trying to say is that the world is not deterministic, because you can not know all the variables to the 1000th digit of accuracy at a given time to predict the state of a system in the future. And I claim that even Snowie and XG are only guessing when they determine the current variables.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.