> However, I have to disagree with this statement: > "UCT: Complete Antithesis to AI-approach" > Martin Mueller quotes J.McCarthy in his thesis: "The research of Go programs is still in its infancy, but we shall see that to bring Go programs to a level comparable with current Chess programs, investigations of a totally different kind than used in computer chess are needed".
UCT is different to Alpha-Beta (not totally, because its some other form of search, but it is different). I am sure, McCarthy had not UCT in mind. It was always the goal of McCarthy and his followers to simulate and to surpass the human mind. HAL in Stanly Kubrics Odyssee in space 2001 is the dream-computer of this discipline. UCT has nothing to do with human Go. It has some similarity to the behaviour of ant-collonies (its not in the technical sense an ant-colony algo). It was never the goal of AI to explain ants. > I really thing it is exactly a modern AI approach!! Also it is a > general algorithm applied to many different domains (and many are not > two player games, ie max-max problems and not min-max). > I full aggree, it is a general and very interesting algorithm which can be applied to many domains. How would you define modern AI? Obviously it is not the classic approach to mimic humans anymore. But what is it? In my opinion is UCT a statistical estimation method. The armed-bandit is classical statistical problem. > I think it is exactly the bad example for the "anti-drosophila thesis"... > What do we learn about the human mind from UCT? Chrilly
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
