RE: [computer-go] SlugGo approach: GNU vs.Goliath

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Vlad Dumitrescu
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 17:49
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] SlugGo approach: GNU vs.Goliath
>
>
> From: "Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > At some point David wrote:
> >> It is clear that this non-optimal once-branched and then linear
> >> deep lookahead (that we implemented just because it is an easy
> >> way to start) in fact plays better, even if not optimally, for
> the right
> >> reasons, or even with complete or correct information.
> >
> > Now, this made me think. Does it really play better for the
> right reasons?
>
> Hi,
>
> I think your experiment and thoughts, Mark, are very useful and I
> think good
> things might come up from this.
>
> I'll leave David answer the questions raised, but I'd like to
> point out that
> it's interesting that your experiment might have been born out of a
> misunderstanding. The way I read David's statement, he says "in
> fact plays
> better, even if not optimmaly, [even if not] for the right
> reasons, or even
> with[out] complete or correct information". So I'd say you two
> are agreeing
> :-)
>

Indeed your interpretation is opposite to what I understood. Reading the
same quote again makes me realize it's a bit of a strange sentence that
could maybe be interpreted in different ways. But I still think it means
what I originally thought it did. Maybe David can tell us which he intended
:)

It took half a day for my posting to come through and I hadn't received
anything for over a week, so I thought this list was down. Apparently not,
so probably everybody is busy with their holidays.

Best wishes to all for 2005.

    Mark



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