On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Nick Wedd <n...@maproom.co.uk> wrote: > 1.) A neural net cannot explain its "thinking process" because it does not > have any.
I have used artificial neural nets a lot in my go programs; it is trivial to display predictions, but understanding them is of course not always easy. Still I probably would not have a hard time to explain the Tournament Director how it arrives at those predictions. I do not agree with your statement that a neural net has no thinking process. > 2.) It would still be too easy to cheat. The cheater could run a program > which looks at the position and generates a plausible "display of its > thinking process", while a professional player thinks and then tells it > where to play. Then the program generates more "display of thinking > process" tending to support the recommended move, before playing it. True, but at least it requires some programming effort. I don't believe we can rule out all possible forms of cheating (this can even be done when playing locally using a simple wireless link) but we can at least try to make it a bit of a challenge. BTW, when there is a clear suspicion the author can already be forced to show his code to the TD or some trusted independent party. Erik _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
