Re: Plagiary, CGF view

["P. Shotwell" <shotwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

Just a curious question.

If Hamlet and Silver Igo were 'copies' or 'partial copies' of Handtalk, how did
they beat Handtalk? They must have improved on Handtalk or else they were
specifically programmed to beat Handtalk. From what I know, in the early years
computer go programs were specifically designed to exploit weaknesses in Bruce
Wilcox's Nemisis program. Had they, in effect, 'copied' Nemesis? They lacked
strength in other ways and thus looked better than they actually were. But they
still won. But then, of course, these winners had to take on the problem of
beating other programs which had done the same thing. Therefore there was
Darwinian 'progress' and evolution in the most fundamental way--survival of the
fittest.

Is this somewhat the same situation? I don't remember Wilcox complaining except to
say that his program mimicked 'human thinking' better than the others. However, in
a money tournament, we are dealing with money and go programs, and not Artificial
Intelligence (meaning, who says that humans know how to play go the best way?) so
the final proof at this stage of our ignorance, as in war, would seem to be in the
winning or losing, not how it was done.

In other words, with all due respect to Dr. Chen, it would seem to me that his
task will be to figure out through 'reverse engineering' why Handtalk lost and
correct the situation.

Although I can claim some knowledge of the history of Asian war stratagems, I am
not a computer expert so I may be missing some of the point of this discussion.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you,
Peter Shotwell
shotwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx