> I think I disagree > with the statement "an evaluation that only > understands final scores will not > make a strong go program" depending on what you mean > by random.
here i will interject by agreeing with the statement that "an evaluation that only understands final scores will not make a strong go program". if (and perhaps no such go programs exist) one were to construct a go program that simply evaluated moves based upon the percentage of completely-played-out randomly chosen games attached to the given next move (or two, or whatever) that ended in a win for himself, then that would not be a strategy that one could expect to beat professional go players, or even to seriously challenge good existing software with equivalent hardware and time constraints within the stated, "one year". s. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
