Heikki,
I'm with you. There is no "wrong thinking" at the present time. There
are too many differing agendas, with building the strongest program
immediately being only one, to claim any approach is futile, inefficient
or erred. Once there are approaches that actually come near playing low
dan levels against humans, I can see how narrowing approaches and
thinking will become useful. Until then, lots of chaotic and random
path experimentation is desirable, including other languages,
specialized languages, techniques, etc.
Jim
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 11:52:14AM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
I know that most go programmers don't concern themselves with small
improvements because of the sense that there is bigger fish to fry.
But this is wrong thinking. If you can get 10 small improvements it
can be equivalent to one very large improvement.
This is frong thinking *for you*. Wasn't it yourself who said that people
program go for various reasons, only one of them being "making the strongest
possible program". A person with a more theoretical approach might lament
that all that speed optimizing indeed improved the play considerably, but has
not produced any new insight or theory on how best to approach the problem. A
mere amateur like me could complain about the time invested in those small
improvements, that I did not gain any new knowlege for myself, it was just
routine programming. I humbly suggest that none of us (including you :-) is
guilty of "wrong thinking".
Regards
Heikki
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
