Re: [gnugo-devel] endgame module for GNU Go

[Eric]

--- Martin Girard <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Sep 6, 2004, at 18:22, Eric wrote:
> 
> > Similarly, GNU Go will never conquer the game of
> Go by
> > relying exclusively on a procedural, pattern
> matching
> > approach. It's a nice start, and it is impressive
> how
> > far you folks have gotten with it. But it aint
> gonna
> > get the job done.
> >
> 
> I agree up to the procedural part, although you seem
> to underestimate 
> pattern matching. Isn't it more or less how humans
> approach the 
> problem?

I am excited about the pattern matching stuff. Sorry
if I have given the impression otherwise. And yes,
humans often rely on pattern matching; just not
*exclusively*. In fact, there is evidence that humans
combine a myriad of different kinds of mental
processes.

> Besides, there is some work into teaching
> neural networks to 
> play Go, and so far results are encouraging.

Neat. I'm very much interested in Explanation-Based
Neural Networks (EBNNs) because they combine the two
different approaches.

> > So, with that being said, I hope you can forgive
> my
> > loss of patience. I have a lot of work to do, and
> I
> > came to this list for technical advice. Instead, I
> get
> > hung up with all this logistical chit chat about
> FSF.
> > Anyone who has ever taken an Introduction to
> Computer
> > Science course knows how FSF works. It is not new.
> >
> 
> Given GNU Go is Free Software, this is very
> relevant, don't you agree?

Yes. I have admitted that I have been impatient.

> Also, keep in mind that GNU Go IS a procedural
> computer Go player. If 
> you dislike the concept that much, wouldn't it be
> much wiser to start 
> your own project? What's the point of building on
> top of something 
> you'd like to scrap?

I already addressed this above.

> >>>> Most users would not even know what a planner
> >> was
> >>>> and that GNU Go had a use for one.
> >>>
> >>> Duh. That's the whole purpose of the effort.
> >> Nobody
> >>> knew what personal computers were useful for
> >> either,
> >>> until Bill Gates starting building them.
> >>
> >> I didn't make any sense out of the second
> statement.
> >> Did Microsoft already claimed that it was Bill
> Gates
> >> who invented computer or what?
> >
> > Bill Gates wanted to build a computer that
> > non-programmers could use. Everybody gave him
> hell,
> > because it was so counter-intuitive. They didn't
> > understand what use someone who couldn't program a
> > computer would possibly have for one.
> >
> > All of a sudden, everybody understands now.
> >
> 
> You definitely give that guy way too much credit.

Not really. DOS was developed in a government research
laboratory, with taxpayer money. Not only is Billy
charging the public, he also has billions of dollars
in government contracts to provide the government with
a product that they developed.

Is that not genius?

Eric