indeed, and I think most of us wouldn't be here if we didn't think a better rule could be designed. Your point is well taken. Sorry if I didn't acknowledge it properly.
- Nick On 1/12/07, Ray Easton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday, Jan 12, 2007, at 16:39 US/Central, Nick Apperson wrote: > The solution is a rule. It is only a matter of how easy that rule is > to apply. We have a rule that works now: Do a full min-max search on > every move and play the move that results in the highest expected > return given that your opponent is aiming for the lowest... Game > theory gives us that rule and we know it works for all games. We > might want a slightly more useful rule however. All rules require > computation, just to varying degrees while returning varying degrees > of correctness. Well, of course. But it appears that you were claiming a lot more than that: > a person would not be able to solve 19x19 because a person lacks the > necessary computational resources to form a solution in any reasonable > amount of time. A computer would therefore have to solve go. What I'm asserting is that we do not know -- and in fact have no good reason to have any particular opinion -- about whether every rule for Go requires this sort of computation. Ray _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
