Hi,
> I'm on the other side of this issue. In my opinion all kinds of go > knowledge are fair game and I'm rather disappointed that so small > amounts of domain specific knowledge have been merged with the UCT > search approaches. >
I agree. I really do not understand why using domain knowledge would be a problem for some people.
Maybe one big reason is that domain knowledge is really hard to get right. A lot of man power is needed to have a program with non ridiculous go knowledge, higher than any other ideas that have been successful in UCT.
It seems to me that this opinion is held by programmers with less Go knowledge who hope that pure search is an answer.
Maybe they believe that there is a lot of room for improvement without go knowledge, and other will put the go knowledge because they are stronger in that part. Isn't it the way research goes forward?
(...) I cannot imagine that progress will be made without a great deal of domain knowledge.
Depending on what you exactly mean I disagree. Progress has been made without "a great deal of domain knowledge" and there are many improvements in the algorithms we can make. That does not prevent using domain knowledge!
I think that the next big trick will be in getting the domain knowledge into the form that the MC methods can use efficiently.
I agree that it is ONE OF the next big trick. But people with experience in the "classical" programs are much more suited for that than "new comers". On the other side, there are plenty of other ways to improve. My point is that there are not mutually exclusive. Cheers, Sylvain _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
