On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 09:06 -0500, Richard Brown wrote: > I'm compelled to point out that neural nets, _trained_ on patterns, > which > patterns themselves are then discarded, have the ability to > "recognize" > novel patterns, ones which have never been previously seen, let alone > stored. The list of do's and dont's has been discarded, and what to > do > or not do, in a situation that may never have been seen before, is > inferred, > not looked-up in a library of rules.
There is blurry line and much of it is semantics. Most programs have hand coded programs in them and that's pretty much the extent. neural nets and other ideas of course I welcome as I believe they are better simulators of what a brain should be than simple patterns. I'm really in favor of "making the attempt" to produce a program that has very little if any domain specific knowledge other than the rules of the game. I'm not claiming it will be better - but it will be more elegant, aesthetically pleasing than rote knowledge blindly applied. In computer chess there is a big deal about the "opening book." This is as ugly as it gets - there is ZERO understanding of anything other than doing a database lookup. But it's pretty much a necessity and there is something to be said for benefiting from the knowledge obtained by others - even us humans do it in a big way. So don't think I'm lambasting the idea of using knowledge in crude ways - I'm foremost an engineer and will do whatever it takes. But I'm recommending an approach not based on brute force if possible. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
