Well I'll just point out a few things...
>That is not to say that AI cannot learn a great deal from cognitive
psychology etc, but you are welcome to ignore basic research.
I never said otherwise. Likewise you are welcome to ignore research in
computer Go.
>then you know more than Christoph Koch, because he knows that he
doesn't yet have a good idea about how brains work, which is why
studying the brain is his life's work.
I said while playing Go, which you conveniently ignored. I also meant
having a sensible idea of what is happening, not full mastery on the
subject. Knowledge enough to play Go, if I wasn't explicit enough.
>i think that when you say "you" you mean yourself and David Fotland
who repeatedly has expressed the same view as you. I am not.
1. I appreciate being put into the same bag as mr Fotland.
2. By "you" I meant the hypothetical average person interested in
computer Go, such as Cai Gengyang. Competitive results are also a simple
metric for Go players, whereas your ideas of understanding of the game
are not so easily formulated.
Your aggressiveness against a MCTS approach is just not what I thought
was right for someone asking about computer Go.
You also seem to romanticize a world where MCTS is fully understood and
set in stone, with other approaches never before tried, victims of some
conspiracy of probabilistic zealots.
>i give up. masochism is not my bag. i pointed to the water, but you
and just about everyone else with a mouse in their hands obviously
prefer canned fizzy drinks instead.
I agree arguing about this is not a good time investment. I'm sure
there's room for research in whatever application of AI a newcomer to
computer Go might be interested in.
Gonçalo F.
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
