|
David Mechner wrote:
>I think there's a trap for all of us in computer go, which is the >impulse to put lots of time and effort into things that we know how go >about doing - like interface, or optimizing for memory and cpu time - >instead of the things that are hard and confusing - making the >computer play go. I think David's calling this a Trap is misleading. A winning Go program is still clearly a mystery. If there are indeed breakthoughs and insights ahead, these lightbulbs do not light up in some predictable, linear fashion; nor will they necessarily come any faster by concentrating exclusively on what we believe now are the obvious areas of attack. This path is the path to systematic frustration and perhaps even abandonment. Remember that while we're trying to make a computer play Go, it's still a human doing the programming, and heed must be paid to the emotional nutrition a human requires. Diverting one's attention from time to time to cut-and-paste chores -- to progress where progress is more easily available -- treats the ego to little successes where more profound breakthroughs may at that moment simply not be available. Moreover, such diversions are by no means worthless or trivial. Examing any aspect of Go through the explicit thought processes of programming always illuminates previously overlooked aspects of the game. The chain of thought and emotion that leads to creative breakthroughs is simply not amenable to David's "Don't waste your time here" paradigm. A small but important literature on the psychology of creative scientific and mathematical thought -- particularly Jacques Hadamard's "The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field" (Dover) -- might be a particularly valuable diversion for the temporarily frustrated CyberGoist. Some things you can plan for. Others just fall from the sky unexpectedly, or (as in Kekule's benzene structure) come to us in dreams. Bob Merkin |