RE: An AI program that doesn't learn

[Peter.Smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> Patricia Hughes and David Elsdon wrote:
> 
> > I do think it is necessary to keep track of a group's 
> identity. My program has
> > no notion of the history of the game. It determines its 
> move from the current
> > position and nothing more. And I am convinced that this is 
> the right way to do
> > it.
> 
>  Hmmm . . . humans use plans. A plan persists into the future. A plan
> requires
> a context. The context comprises a description of the current objects
> and their
> state. You can judge the success of a plan by monitoring the change of
> state of
> the objects.  If your plan was to kill a group and it fails then you
> should really
> do some detailed analysis to identify the flaw in your plan. e.g.
> oponent does a move
> that you did not consider.
> 
>  Cheers Paul (P.J.Leonard)

If the program is being tuned by hand then analysing flaws, and re-tuning, 
is also being done by hand rather than by the program.

If the program is tuning itself against a set of problems then again it's
not interesting for the program to keep history information for a board
position (it won't have any when it is being trained.)

Where this would apply is if the program is itself learning by playing
matches against humans or better still other programs.  I have the gut
feeling this approach is simply going to take too long to be viable. 

Regards,

Peter.