style_consensus/style_consensus.tex

   1 \documentclass[12pt,a4paper,notitlepage]{article}
   2
   3 \usepackage[a4paper,vmargin={40mm,40mm},hmargin={30mm,30mm}]{geometry}
   4
   5 %% Použité kódování znaků: obvykle latin2, cp1250 nebo utf8:
   6 \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
   7
   8 %% Ostatní balíčky
   9 \usepackage[titletoc]{appendix}
  10 \usepackage{graphicx}
  11 \usepackage{wrapfig}
  12 %\usepackage{color}
  13 \usepackage[multiple]{footmisc}
  14 %\usepackage[dont-mess-around]{fnpct}
  15 %\usepackage{amsthm}
  16 %\usepackage{amsmath}
  17 \usepackage{threeparttable}
  18 \usepackage{longtable}
  19 \usepackage{tabularx}
  20 %\usepackage{amsfonts}
  21 %\usepackage{caption}
  22 %\usepackage[lined, ruled, boxed, linesnumbered]{algorithm2e}
  23
  24
  25 \usepackage[round]{natbib}             % sazba pouzite literatury
  26
  27 %\usepackage{psfrag}
  28 %\usepackage{psgo,array}
  29 \usepackage{url}                % sazba URL
  30
  31 \usepackage[ps2pdf,unicode]{hyperref}   % Musí být za všemi ostatními balíčky
  32 \usepackage{breakurl}
  33
  34 \title{Style Consensus: Style of Professional Players\\
  35 Judged by Strong Players}
  36
  37 \author{Josef~Moud\v{r}\'{i}k,~Petr~Baudi\v{s}\\
  38 \small Faculty of Math and Physics, Charles University, Prague, CZ}
  39
  40 \begin{document}
  41 \maketitle
  42
  43 \begin{abstract}
  44     GoStyle \citep{GoStyleWeb} is a project we founded to study
  45     possibilities of computer analysis of databases of Go games. As a
  46     part of this project, we conducted (partly manual and partly online)
  47     a questionnaire, where we ask experts (strong amateur or professional players)
  48     to judge styles of several professional Go players. The experts
  49     were asked to judge each professional on four scales reflecting the
  50     traditional Go knowledge. In this report, we publish these results, along with
  51     definitions of styles and acknowledgement of the interviewees. The
  52     purpose is to make the data available to the general public.
  53 \end{abstract}
  54
  55
  56 \section{Questionnaire Setup}
  57
  58 We chose a small subset of well known players (mainly from the 20th century) and
  59 asked some experts (professional and strong amateur players; see acknowledgement)
  60 to evaluate these players using a questionnaire. Initially (first three experts from the
  61 acknowledgement) this was done by hand using an e-mail based questionnaire, the rest
  62 of the experts were asked using our online questionnaire\footnote{
  63 \url{http://gostyle.j2m.cz/questionare.html}
  64 }.
  65
  66 The experts were asked to value the players on four scales, each ranging from 1 to 10.
  67
  68 %\begin{table}[h!]
  69 \begin{center}
  70 %\caption{Styles}
  71 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
  72 \hline
  73 \textbf{Style} & \textbf{1} & \textbf{10}\\ \hline
  74 Territoriality & Moyo & Territory \\
  75 Orthodoxity & Classic & Novel \\
  76 Aggressivity& Calm & Fighting \\
  77 Thickness & Safe & Shinogi \\ \hline
  78 \end{tabular}
  79 \end{center}
  80
  81 The scales try to reflect
  82 some of the traditionally perceived playing styles.\footnote{
  83     Refer to~\citet{GoGoD:styles}, or~\citet{senseis:styles}.
  84 }
  85 For example, the first scale (\emph{territoriality})
  86 stresses whether a player prefers safe, yet inherently smaller territory (number 10 on the scale),
  87 or roughly sketched large territory (\emph{moyo}, 1 on the scale), which is however insecure.
  88 The meaning of boundary terms in all four scales (maybe except the last one)
  89 should be clear to any fairly experienced player.
  90 Apart from the table above, the experts had not thus been given any more information regarding the
  91 styles.
  92
  93 There has been some discussion \citep[Discussion]{Moudrik13}
  94 about proper meaning of the last scale and we might want to redefine
  95 it in the future. Apart from this, we also plan to
  96 rename the Scale of Orthodoxity to Novelty in the further data collection,
  97 so that the name of the scale
  98 reflects the ``trend'' given by names of the boundaries --- in the questionnaire
  99 presented so far, the number 1 was unfortunately
 100 assigned to Classic style of game and 10 to Novel style of game.
 101
 102 The experts' answers were collected 2010 to 2013.
 103
 104 \section{Results}
 105
 106 Are given in the Table~\ref{questionare} along with standard deviation of individual
 107 answers. Mean standard deviation of the answers is 1.302, so we consider the results
 108 reasonably precise.
 109
 110 The following table lists mean value of answers within each scale (to show how
 111 are the 1 to 10 scales ``populated'') and pairwise correlations
 112 between different styles, using the
 113 Pearson's correlation coefficient \citep{Pearson}.
 114
 115 \begin{table}[h!]
 116 \centering
 117 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
 118 \hline
 119 \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{---} &
 120 \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textbf{Pearson's $r$}} \\ \hline
 121 \textbf{Style} & \textbf{Mean value}
 122                & Ter.& Orth.& Aggr.& Thick.\\ \hline
 123
 124 Territoriality & $5.762 \pm 2.418$ &
 125            1.000 &          -0.574 &          -0.638 &           0.339 \\
 126 Orthodoxity & $5.494 \pm 2.209$ &
 127                  &           1.000 &           0.730 &           0.105 \\
 128 Aggressivity & $6.679 \pm 2.135$ &
 129                  &                 &           1.000 &           0.324 \\
 130 Thickness & $4.954 \pm 1.645$ &
 131                  &                 &                 &           1.000 \\\hline
 132
 133 \end{tabular}
 134 \caption[Mean values of styles and their
 135 pairwise correlation]{The mean values of styles (across all the answers) and the pairwise
 136 correlation between them.}
 137 \label{style_prior}
 138 \end{table}
 139
 140 \begin{table}[t]
 141 % increase table row spacing, adjust to taste
 142 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
 143 \begin{threeparttable}
 144 \centering
 145 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
 146 \hline
 147 \textbf{\#} & \textbf{Player} & {\small \textbf{Territoriality}}\hspace{-1pt} &
 148 {\small\textbf{Orthodoxity}}\hspace{-1pt} &
 149 \hspace{-1pt}{\small\textbf{Aggressivity}}\hspace{-1pt} &
 150 {\small\textbf{Thickness}}\hspace{-1pt} \\
 151 \hline
 152 5&           Cho Chikun & $8.4 \pm 1.4$ & $5.8 \pm 2.5$ & $7.2 \pm 1.3$ & $9.2 \pm 0.7$ \\
 153 5&                Cho U & $7.2 \pm 1.8$ & $6.0 \pm 2.0$ & $6.6 \pm 2.1$ & $6.4 \pm 1.4$ \\
 154 5&                Gu Li & $6.4 \pm 1.2$ & $7.4 \pm 1.5$ & $9.0 \pm 0.9$ & $5.4 \pm 1.9$ \\
 155 5&        Ishida Yoshio & $8.6 \pm 1.4$ & $3.4 \pm 2.2$ & $3.0 \pm 1.1$ & $4.2 \pm 1.5$ \\
 156 5&          Otake Hideo & $5.4 \pm 1.9$ & $3.2 \pm 1.6$ & $3.8 \pm 1.5$ & $3.4 \pm 1.0$ \\
 157 5&           Sakata Eio & $7.6 \pm 1.6$ & $3.4 \pm 1.6$ & $8.0 \pm 1.1$ & $8.2 \pm 1.3$ \\
 158 5&      Takemiya Masaki & $1.4 \pm 0.5$ & $5.0 \pm 2.4$ & $7.2 \pm 0.7$ & $2.0 \pm 0.9$ \\
 159 5&         Yi Ch'ang-ho & $7.8 \pm 1.7$ & $5.6 \pm 1.9$ & $4.6 \pm 2.3$ & $3.2 \pm 0.7$ \\
 160 5&            Yi Se-tol & $6.0 \pm 1.1$ & $7.8 \pm 2.3$ & $9.4 \pm 0.5$ & $7.6 \pm 1.5$ \\
 161 4&     Kobayashi Koichi & $9.5 \pm 0.9$ & $2.0 \pm 0.7$ & $2.8 \pm 0.4$ & $4.0 \pm 1.6$ \\
 162 4&          Ma Xiaochun & $8.2 \pm 1.9$ & $5.2 \pm 1.9$ & $5.2 \pm 1.8$ & $6.8 \pm 2.3$ \\
 163 4&              O Meien & $2.5 \pm 1.1$ & $8.2 \pm 2.5$ & $8.0 \pm 1.6$ & $4.8 \pm 2.2$ \\
 164 4&           Rui Naiwei & $5.5 \pm 1.8$ & $5.5 \pm 0.5$ & $9.0 \pm 0.7$ & $4.0 \pm 1.6$ \\
 165 4&        Yoda Norimoto & $7.0 \pm 1.9$ & $3.8 \pm 2.0$ & $4.0 \pm 1.9$ & $3.2 \pm 1.1$ \\
 166 3&            Go Seigen & $4.7 \pm 2.5$ & $6.3 \pm 3.9$ & $8.0 \pm 0.8$ & $5.3 \pm 0.9$ \\
 167 3&           Hane Naoki & $8.0 \pm 0.8$ & $3.3 \pm 1.2$ & $4.0 \pm 0.0$ & $4.0 \pm 1.4$ \\
 168 3&           Kato Masao & $3.0 \pm 0.8$ & $3.7 \pm 1.7$ & $8.7 \pm 1.2$ & $5.7 \pm 2.4$ \\
 169 3&             Luo Xihe & $7.3 \pm 0.9$ & $7.3 \pm 2.5$ & $7.7 \pm 0.9$ & $6.0 \pm 1.4$ \\
 170 3&      Yamashita Keigo & $2.0 \pm 0.0$ & $7.3 \pm 2.5$ & $9.3 \pm 0.5$ & $4.0 \pm 1.6$ \\
 171 2&           Chen Yaoye & $6.0 \pm 1.0$ & $4.0 \pm 1.0$ & $6.0 \pm 1.0$ & $5.5 \pm 0.5$ \\
 172 2&    Fujisawa Hideyuki & $3.5 \pm 0.5$ & $9.0 \pm 1.0$ & $7.0 \pm 0.0$ & $4.0 \pm 0.0$ \\
 173 2&      Honinbo Shusaku & $8.5 \pm 0.5$ & $2.0 \pm 1.0$ & $4.5 \pm 2.5$ & $4.0 \pm 2.0$ \\
 174 2&        Miyazawa Goro & $1.5 \pm 0.5$ & $10.0 \pm 0.0$ & $9.5 \pm 0.5$ & $4.0 \pm 1.0$ \\
 175 2&         Takao Shinji & $5.0 \pm 1.0$ & $3.5 \pm 0.5$ & $5.5 \pm 1.5$ & $4.5 \pm 0.5$ \\
 176 2&         Yuki Satoshi & $3.0 \pm 1.0$ & $8.5 \pm 0.5$ & $9.0 \pm 1.0$ & $4.5 \pm 0.5$ \\
 177
 178 \hline
 179 \end{tabular}
 180 \caption[Expert-based style aspects of selected professionals]{
 181 Expert-based evaluation of styles of selected Professionals, including
 182 standard deviation of their answers.
 183 Only the players that were evaluated by two or more experts
 184 are included. Number of experts who evaluated the particular player is given in first column.}
 185 \label{questionare}
 186 \end{threeparttable}
 187 \end{table}
 188
 189 \section{Acknowledgement}
 190 We would like to thank the following people for filling the questionnaire (in the order
 191 of submitted answers):
 192
 193 Motoki Noguchi 7-dan, Alexander Dinerchtein 3-pro, Vít Brunner 4-dan,
 194 Vladimír Daněk 5-dan and Lukáš Podpěra 5-dan.
 195
 196
 197 \bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
 198 \bibliography{style_consensus}
 199
 200 \end{document}