I disagree with the assertion MC must be the starting point. It appears to have stagnated into a local optima; i.e. it's going to take something different to dislodge MC, just like it took MC to dislodge the traditional approaches preceding MC's introduction a decade ago. Ultimately, I think it can serve to inform a higher level conceptual system
And while I don't get his videos (they are way to ADHD scattered and discontinuous for my personal ability to focus and internalize), I think I grok the general direction he'd like to see things head. And I am quite ambivalent about the idea of creating and using linguistic semantic trees as an approach, as much or even more than I was about MC when it emerged. On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Stefan Kaitschick < stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de> wrote: > So far I have not criticised but asked questions. I am a great fan of the > expert system approach because a) I have studied go knowledge a lot and > see, in principle, light at the end of the tunnel, b) I think that "MC + > expert system" or "only expert system" can be better than MC if the expert > system is well designed, c) an expert system can, in principle, provide > more meaningful insight for us human duffers than an MC because the expert > system can express itself in terms of reasoning. (Disclaimer: There is a > good chance that I will criticise anybody presenting his definitions for > use in an expert system. But who does not dare to be criticised does not > learn!) > > MC is currently stagnating, so looking at new (or old discarded) > approaches has become more attractive again. > But I don't think that a "classic" rules based system will be of much use > from here. It is just too far removed from MC concepts to be productively > integrated into an MC system. And no matter what, MC has to be the starting > point, because it is so much more effective than anything else that has > been tried.What you are left to work with, is the trail of statistics that > MC leaves behind. That is the only tunnel with a possible end to it that I > see. And who knows, maybe someone will find statistical properties that can > be usefully mapped back to human concepts of go. > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
