Re: [computer-go] Learning : was Chess programs versus go programs

[David G Doshay <ddoshay@xxxxxxx>]

On 11, Dec 2004, at 11:29 PM, Matt Gokey wrote:

> David Doshay from the SlugGo team replied that SlugGo used this very 
> technique and I think we can all agree the SlugGo project was/is 
> certainly successful.  I think this concept can be taken much further 
> than the SlugGo team has done by specifically designing a system 
> towards this end.
My view that Go is hierarchical is what motivated me to do SlugGo. 
SlugGo is the first implementation of a broader project to develop 
computational tools for solving multi-scale hierarchical problems in 
physics.

I agree that there could be more computationally efficient ways for 
SlugGo to do what it does, but there was no quicker way for us to get 
up and running than to use all of the existing work done in GNU Go for 
our basic move generator. At this time the whole board evaluations done 
by SlugGo are all done by starting with existing GNU Go evaluation 
functions, but other than that they are completely decoupled from the 
move generation supplied by GNU Go.

I agree that a program that properly gets the coupling between the 
local tactical fights (smallest scales), the life and death (medium 
small scale), the amalgamation of groups (medium scale), and whole 
board (largest scale) working together by design will result in a 
program that is faster and better than SlugGo. We take the speed hit at 
run time to get big gains in calendar time.

In final agreement with Matt's comments about the hierarchical nature 
of the problem, note the name of the foundation that supports this 
work.


Sincerely,
David G Doshay
President and Treasurer
Hierarchical Systems Research Foundation

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/