Hi, I only had a short cross-read, so my impressions are very subjective.
> I don't think the paper is written very clearly, Right. The authors are either not willing are not able to formulate their findings in simple words. > * Do you think the results feel plausible? Yes. > * Do you think it contributes anything actually immediately useful? I think they give "us" old wine in new bottles. The following sentence from short Section 3 (on p.5 middle) feeds my doubts: > Quite surprisingly, very powerful programs have already been developed > and tested in practice against human players (see [11]), however the > action-evaluation algorithms used in these software are purely heuristic > and no theoretical foundation is presented to explain their success. Ref [11] is the wellknown paper by Kocsis, L. and Szepesvari, C. (2006). >From Remi Coulom they only mention the 2007-workshop report on use of Elo ratings... I was not impressed - or their really good findings are hidden somewhere (either in the 54 pages or in the forthcoming papers announced). Ingo. -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
