you'd be making a bot similar to GnuGo
no, you wouldn't. i do call it a proposal for a new Gnu Go, because i support the principles of the Gnu Foundation. But beyond that, there is no similarity between the programs whatsoever that is not also shared by Alphago and every other bot ever written to play Go. Not a single jot. If anyone can find one, do tell.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.04315v2
i agree with their observations about Alphago and Watson. Commonsense Go (CG) does not embrace all human general commonsense, which is much richer and broader; it only embraces a version of the sense about Go that is common among Go players. But it is a somewhat stylised version of that sense; for example, it includes the concepts of clusters, colour maps and shadow maps, all of which are novel. I do not know whether a pro would see what CG calls a group in quite the same way. CG would not be a candidate for the Allen AI Challenge as it cannot answer arbitrary questions. However, it does "move beyond information retrieval and into intelligent inferencing over multiple facts, concepts, and relationships to produce correct, explainable answers to these questions" - subject to the constraint that the only questions it can answer are "Why?" and "What do you think if black/white plays <here> now?".
what is described (in the paper, I have not viewed the video) is not influence and strength. Concepts should also be based on connection status instead of proximity sold as "influence"
influence is computed as g(shadow map). group strength has one of 4 qualitative values: alive, dead, strong and weak. Colour and shadow concepts ARE based on potential connectivity, not merely proximity, as you will see if you study the algorithms more carefully.
It should be obvious that CG's perceptions of territory and influence are its perceptions, and only its perceptions. No claim is made that CG's perceptions are mathematical proofs of unconditional connectedness, but i do claim that they correlate well with what a pro would say. If you know a pro, you can ask them. I have asked 3 pros what they think of CG's reply to Lee Sedol's move 78, but have yet to receive an answer. CG can be said to "believe" that clusters are tightly connected, and groups more loosely so. If you watch the video, you will see examples of how the colour and shadow maps are iteratively computed and recomputed after dead clusters are identified. The perimeters of clusters and groups are not impenetrable walls as they are preceived without dynamic analysis. However, the metamethod does perform dynamic analysis of connection status when applying the methods "connect" and "separate".
Robert, i believe you have some ideas of your own about how to compute influence. Please apply them to the examples in the paper/video, and share the results with us, so we can see how what your ideas produce compares with what CG thinks.
