There's a _whole_ lot of philosophizing going on on the basis of four games. Just saying.
steve On Mar 14, 2016 7:41 AM, "Josef Moudrik" <j.moud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Moreover, it might not be possible to explain the strong play in human > understandable terms anyway; human rationalization might simply be a > heuristic not strong enough to describe/capture it succinctly. > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:21 PM Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote: > >> On 14.03.2016 08:59, Jim O'Flaherty wrote: >> > an AI player who becomes a better and better teacher. >> >> But you are aware that becoming a stronger AI player does not equal >> becoming a stronger teacher? Teachers also need to (translate to and) >> convey human knowledge and reasoning, and adapt to the specific pupils' >> needs (incl. reasoning, subconscious thinking and psychology) while >> interacting with human language specialised in go language. Solve two >> dozen AI tasks, combine them and then, maybe, you get the equivalent of >> a teacher. [FYI, I have taught 100+ regular single go pupils since 2008, >> and groups of pupils.] >> >> -- >> robert jasiek >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
