Hi David, Since I made my last post to you, several people have responded. They have made my point and I agree with your point.
It's foolish not to take advantage of domain specific information and nothing prevents a monte carlo program from doing that as you can see. Having said that, I have pretty much a pure Monte Carlo program (not "pure" but pure in the sense that it has no go knowledge) and although it does pretty well on CGOS, it has fallen far behind Mogo and others which use domain specific knowledge. Mogo of course uses a lot some pattern knowledge. If you read their paper, you will see that they are applying this to 19x19 GO and this program seems to be relatively strong although perhaps not the best. - Don On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 22:18 -0800, David Fotland wrote: > I agree with you that knowledge engineering is diminishing returns. I > don’t > think that adding more knowledge to existing programs will make them > strong > any time soon. But there is a lot of simple basic useful knowledge, > like > counting liberties, and it seems to me that the monte-carlo > enthusiasts are > ignoring this. > > My point with the file I attached is not that it's a difficult > position. > These fights are incredibly easy if you just add a few dozen lines of > code > to count liberties correctly. To me it's as if a weak chess player > says, my > program doesn’t need to understand basic pawn structure evaluation. > It > looks really complicated. I'll just search faster than you. There is > some > basic knowledge that is not complex and is very useful. > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
