Re: An AI program that doesn't learn

[Mousheng Xu <moushengxu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Patricia and David,

At 01:39 AM 6/23/99 +0200, Patricia Hughes and David Elsdon wrote:
>1. A measure of the influence of each stone on the board
>2. Strings (orthogonally connected stones of the same colour) and their
liberties
>3. Groups of stones - I'm finding this hard to refine enough to be useful

	Your "groups" means a group of strings of the same color or both colors?

>Basically my program is an Expert System which contains an explicit
representation
>of some of my knowledge of Go. As soon as I get ALL of my knowledge into
my program

	Cool. It sounds like you have a clear design, especially when you can make
rules of strong coherence and loose coupling. You either modify your rules
or add new rules without affecting other parts of the system.
	We are almost all building "expert" systems, however, in whatever language
or with whatever method. I bet no body is trying to just use "silly" tree
searches. :) 
	
	The *** KEY *** now is to get good expert knowledge, don't you agree??? :)
	I published my "theorems" here about 2 years ago, just tried to start a
series of discussions on people's finding on go knowledge. But that's the
only piece of "discussion" ever since. :) Now I am still suffering from
lacking of abstracted go knowledge. May I make a suggestion here? -- Let's
discuss our findings on go knowledge!
	Here is a warning for you: Professor Chen has a team of a couple of 5d
amateur go players as programmers, you'd better improve your go level to
*6d to beat HandTalk. :)

	Have fun.

-- Mousheng