Raymond Wold wrote: >I can code an algorithm that evaluates simple ladders correctly.
>I'll repeat that. I can code a program that reads ladders better than a >pure MC program without knowledge of ladders. I can beat it. Human >knowledge programmed into a computer that does that one thing, that >basic go skill, better than the MC program. >Are you saying that there is absolutely no way to combine such with an >MC program to make it better? Not just that no one has done it (I don't >know if anyone has) but that it is impossible? Are you saying that >attempts to do so are wasted? If you are, I'd appreciate it if you did >so clearly. Complaining that MC programs don't read ladders well is a bit like complaining that Forrest Gump can't tie his shoelaces, it seems to me. There will be many things an MC program will be good at that we won't be, and vice versa. It's not unreasonable to believe that progress with MC/UCT programs will be through making most of its strengths, rather than try to patch its weaknesses in a way not compatible with "how their brains work". _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
