Hi David,
>> (...) I cannot imagine that progress will be >> made without a great deal of domain knowledge. > Depending on what you exactly mean I disagree. I mean progress by the standard usually applied to computer Go: programs that can beat 1D humans on a full board, and then get better.
For me progress meant an improvement, not a goal :-). Anyway, very few months ago almost everyone in this list said that UCT/MC was only suitable for 9x9 Go, which was said not representing the Real Game Of Go, and will never (in near future, or even in far future) do well in 19x19. Today, some UCT/MC based programs, e.g. MoGo, can give 5 stones to gnugo on 19x19 in 30 minutes game, without any additional go knowledge. For me it is an evidence that progress can be made very quickly without "great deal of domain knowledge". Why we (by "we" I mean the all community) could not imagine other improvements? 1D humans on a full board is not so far, contrary as you seem to say...
I am less sure that knowledge representation in the classical programs is the right expertise for its representation in the MC playouts.
Yes, maybe you are right, I don't know. But I think it is not a bad expertise :-). And also it is a very "expensive" expertise (in the sense that it takes a lot of time to get).
So many thing yet to do!
To me it sounds like a good news, don't you think? :-) Cheers, Sylvain _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
