Re: f(x) and NN

[Joan Pons Semelis <joan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Weimin Xiao <ranxiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: P.J.Leonard <P.J.Leonard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ...
> if moveSuggest() is perfect you do not need evaluate()
> if  evaluate() is perfect you can suggest all possible moves and do a 1
> ply search.
> 
> :- That's what I think only one function is enough, and evaluate() is more
> fundamental. Only when evaluate() is not perfect enough, do we need few
> plies to improve the result, or moveSuggest() to provide move candidates.
> 
> Weimin

for moveSuggest() to be able to work fine first some kind of evaluation
of the board must be done, it will, at least implicitly, have to tell
apart killable chains of stones from already dead and already alive; if
every thing on board is dead or alive, and also if not, in fact, the
moveSuggest() will have to find at least yose moves, and thit means
that, again implicitly or explicitly, the previous work on the board
can tell where borderlines of territories are, hence, provide the
implicit (that tells moveSuggest() where to play) can be made explicit
if it was'nt already, we can change this evaluation of the board in a
good evaluate().
If evaluate() is good enough, then it's easy to make a moveSuggest()
that prune away most useless moves, and we don't need a deep ply search.

Bottom line: evaluate() *is* the fundamental.

Joan