User talk:Hayne

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Hayne, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

some General guidance.
Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Take a look at Consensus of standards
Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf ^melmac 23:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz

Hi Hayne, here are the first sixteen moves that I couldn't put on the screenshot. I decided not to put the full game up because it's embarassing to Fritz, losing its queen in 32 moves. I mainly just wanted a picture for people to see. As soon as a major tournament is conducted showing a game between those two programs, I'll try to remember to put up an image with full game moves. Since the games from the SSDF rating list and this one done on my home computer are open to amateur errors, I'd rather wait to put up an official game. If you have one, please post it and delete the image I uploaded if you wish.

Fruit 2.2.1 (2852) - Fritz 8 [B04] Fruit vs. Fritz 8, 10'/40+10'/40+10'40 GATEWAY-ZPKXI6H (1), 05.01.2006 Game played on 2.6 GHz computer.

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bb5 Bf5 6.0–0 a6 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.Nh4 Qd7 9.Re1 Bg4 10.Qd3 dxe5 11.h3 Be6 12.dxe5 Nb4 13.Qe4 Rb8 14.Nc3 c5 15.Rd1 Qc6 16.Qe2 Nd5 Model Citizen 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

I decided to run this game as a blitz game and let the engines "think" on their own from move one, without opening books. Fritz took a few seconds to respond with 1...Nf6. It more often plays e5 or c5 to this opening. According to the January 2006, SSDF rating list, Fruit 2.2.1 is exactly 100 points higher than Fritz 8. 2852 vs 2752. Anyway, I'm going to move on to other subjects, I'm growing tired of chess talk. Model Citizen 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

Actually, if you read the entire discussion, including the thread above the one we were debating in, you will see that there are some people talking about a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Stopping vandalism should be one of our goals, but I don't think it right to deny innocent, good-faith people's rights to edit. Thanks for your comments though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Blue

Response to your message about "computer programs playing Go"

What you said:

With reference to your recent edits of the Deep Blue article, I think it is misleading to say that Go programs are still at beginner levels. A "beginner level" suggests someone who has recently learned the game. The main Go article gives 30-25 kyu as typical beginner rankings, while the GnuGo program, for example, is thought to be around 9 kyu

For the level between 11-30 kyu, it means really nothing. It's just for newbie players who doesn't really know Go. The step between a 20 kyu(k) is no much difference than a 30 kyu. Someone may call a complete newbie a 20 kyu player. Someone may call it a 30 kyu player. Traditionally, a newbie should start at 30kyu (the worst kyu rank). At this stage, it knows nothing about Go. The ranks defined by 11-30kyu are very loose. Learning a few basic things (eg how to capture stones) can jump into the next rank. As you see, these ranks are just here to mark your Go basics learning progress. The progression can be very quick!

The rank starts to make some sense when you jump to 10 kyu. After you reach about 10k or below, each rank starts to mean something. As a general rule of thumb, a 8 kyu player is stronger than a 9k by 1 stone (don't belittle this 1 stone. As a general rule of thumb, it is worth 10 points or more). To increase by one level requires much more skills and talents than someone who jump from 30k to 11k. However getting a 8k or 9k isn't worth praising. They are just beginners in Go world.

As far as I go, I could call:
- 11-30kyu a newbie player;
- 10-6kyu a beginner player;
- 1-5kyu an average player;
- 1-3dan an expert player;
- 4-6dan an ameteur pro.

If I, as a Go player, am to comment about the level of computer Go, I would say they are really in the range of beginners (low-range). A serious learner can beat computer Go within 2 weeks of learning or so. Any high-range beginners can defeat them easily. Computer Go is disappointing among Go players.

By the way, from the sound of it, I think you are a person who doesn't play Go at all, or you should have agreed with me wholeheartedly.

Finally a refernece from http://senseis.xmp.net/?ComputerGo says more or less the same thing:

There is much yet to be done in the field of computer Go. While many different approaches have been tried, the level of the best Go playing programs is still low, even compared to amateur dan players (at least 10 stones!), not to mention professionals.

--Wai Wai 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we are mostly differing on the meaning of the word "beginner". Most people would consider the word "beginner" to be synonymous with "newbie". I.e. a "beginner" is someone who has recently learned the rules. I'm not trying to define a Go-specific term here, merely giving an idea of what the word "beginner" is usually thought to mena in a general context.

I have played Go a bit (maybe 15 games) although I'm not very good at it. I'd consider myself more than a beginner, but if I had to guess, I'd probably say I'm in the 20 kyu range. Certainly Gnu Go beats me relatively easily.

-- Hayne 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the word "newbie" or "beginner" is not Go terms. English is not my first language. But a check in a dictionary tends to show "newbie" is meant to be worse than beginners. They are not exactly the same.

Anyway I probably just couldn't find a suitable word to describe the skill levels of player around 9k. Anyway I think it still goes too far to call a 9k player an average club-level player.

Let me try to rate different ranks again by scoring with some descriptions. (Note: There's no clear-cut definitions especially for the lower ranks, so the following is just for a general reference only)

Rank	Score	Description
16-30k	Unclassified. 0-29%	Disqualified player: They even don't know how to finish the game properly. Knowing something like how to capture a stone and the rules of the game is not equal to "finishing the game properly".
15-11k	Failed. 30-39%	Also disqualified player: They start to realise how to finish the game properly, stage by stage. However they are not really "playing Go". They are playing stones! Most of their plays are "ridiculous". Any rank between 11-30k is meaningless since all these ranks are for stone players.
9-10k	Passed. 40-44%	Beginner Go player: They start to play in Go sense. Still their moves are very crude, full of mistakes. This is where most, if not all, computer Go stands. A serious learner can jump into this stage within 2 weeks of learning or so.
7-8k	Below Average. 45-49%	They can manage to play in some basic Go sense. These players shouldn't find it hard to beat Computer Go. However most of their moves are played with narrow or local minds. They still can't see how powerful a stone can be to the whole game. Also beginner Go player.
4-6k	Average. 50-54%	Their plays start to be understandable and accountable as many moves have some solid Go sense. However advanced Go concepts is still missing at this level. :-)
1-3k	Above Average. 55-59%	What a real Go match - a match with a lot of Go sense. Rarely a move is made without any Go grounds. They really know how to make use of each stone, but not to waste them as many beginners tend to do.
1-3d	Good. 60-64%	There're a lot of thoughts and meaning in each of their moves. Sometimes there're a few situations several moves can make some wonderful plays, but they know how to spot the best of the best. Their views are very broad. Each move is played in consideration of not only local but also global situations. A lot of advanced Go concepts can be found in the match. However pro (full-time) players can still defeat them relatively easily.
4-6d	Excellent. 65-69%+	After 6d, there're pro (full-time) players. Pro players, who are much stronger than amateur players, have another ranking standard. They are in 70-100%.

So what Computer Go achieves? A player jumps from stone player into Go player. It has only some crude or basic sense on how to play Go. Nearly all their plays are laughing in the eye of dan players. A serious player learning between 2 weeks and 1 month can be on a par with or even surpass this player.

Now how would you comment on such achievements? I wouldn't call these as "average club-level". It's still stuck at elementary levels, so to speak. Do you start to have some general understanding on how computer Go achieve now? :-)

Read the reference again. They comment the best Go playing programs as low. Computer Go are far from satisfactory in the views of average Go players. If I am to make an analogy, there is a skyscrapper. A 10k player stays on the ground floor, while 11-30k are all stuck in the basement.

One sentence with "the best Go programs can still be beaten by average club-level players" is highly inaccurate. In my humble opinion, you'd better explain a bit in deep blue article. A word of either "beginner" or "average" doesn't help to convey the right meaning since different readers have different interpretations of the word "beginner" or "average". Making some descriptions beside the comment seems to more beneficial.

I think my first trial is appropriate as the purpose of the description is not to introduce Go, but to show what computer Go players achieve. Some descriptions help a lot in understanding. Not intend to be insulting, but it seems you have also been misled and overvalued computer Go by a simple sentence.
--Wai Wai 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

"I have one major concern with the rewrite: that it seems that the sections of the main article describing policy now seem mostly to mention Bush's initiatives - the criticisms of those initiatives or of policy decisions have now been relegated to the sub-articles. In particular, the enormously important issue of Bush's perceived lack of respect for science (as voiced by many scientists) does not seem to be mentioned at all in the main article. It appears only in the Science section of the Domestic policy sub-article."

Obviously, you are not a true American, if you think these criticisms should be mentioned. I bet you don't believe that embryonic cells are human beings, whose value outweighs the value of research for new cures. You probably don't even believe the earth is 6,000 years old. You heathen, you! I bet you believe that n-dimensional space is science, too! We only have 2 dimensions, or don't you know that? jawesq 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessessment of Pauline Johnson

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Pauline Johnson/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Hayne! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 197 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Kim Maltman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pain Not Bread

The article Pain Not Bread has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication or evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PK T(alk) 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for correcting this error to make it match the source. Keeping people from changing the numbers to what their schoolteacher told them (probably when they were ten years old) has been a real problem in that article, and I really appreciate your help! WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question...

I saw that you travelled to the Thelon River, in 1978, from your photo File:Thelon river oasis.jpg. How exciting.

I am working on new articles on the books by Hornby, Ingestad and Robinson The Land of Feast or Famine (Hornby), The Land of Feast or Famine (Ingestad), and The Land of Feast or Famine (Robinson).

Were you aware of how Hornby starved to death in their winter camp on the banks of the Thelon, during the winter of 1927? You didn't happen to take any pictures? There are some freely re-usable old grainy black and white photos of their cabin, and their nearby graves.

I now regret that I didn't travel to the north, when I was young. I wasn't interested then, and I think I am too old now.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Answer **

There is a photo that I took of the Horby cabin (as it was in 1978) on the Wikipedia page for John Hornby.