> > > It always was believed that Go was would have to be solved by other means, > perhaps even (gasp!) understanding the game. Monte carlo has given some > credibility to the theory that Moores law may be enough after all. I'm > arguing not. > > Moores law would be enough if it continues indefinitely, but it probably won't. But being enough does not mean it's the way to go. That's like saying mini-max without alpha/beta pruning is enough to play a strong games of checkers. It's probably a correct statement, but it's foolish way to write software - in other words it's far from optimal.
I think you are worried about nothing. The engineers who write go programs are going to be imaginative enough and motivated enough to want to make their programs as strong as they possibly can. You talk like they are going to take the lazy way out and get fixated on one method and never experiment with anything else, but that is not realistic. Competition and personal pride will continue to motivate innovation. > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
