>You know, in this case and for life-and-death in general, maybe >programmers should be cautious when rejecting changes because it makes >the program (slightly) weaker.
What you say makes sense. But for life-and-death the real problem is that we don't know of an effective procedure that integrates with the overall framework. Programmers realize this, and they want to address the problem in a comprehensive way. So when a thorny problem comes up, say semeais and ko or approach moves, we realize that we are not implementing a general solution when we patch that special case. In that situation, we decide that we will implement a special case if it seems to make the program stronger. It's a reasonable approach while we await the next breakthrough. Keep in mind that general methods get far too much credit for success. The real strength of our programs isn't exactly UCT or even MCTS. It is more that those frameworks allow for domain-specific adaptations while preserving asymptotic convergence properties under remarkably general circumstances. The same is true of chess & alpha-beta, and neural networks & backgammon, and double-dummy & bridge, and linear programming & poker, and libraries & checkers. In every case it is the clever adaptation of the framework to the domain that extracts full value. Brian _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
