[computer-go] Re: Explanation to MoGo paper wanted. (BackGammon Code)

[David Silver]

> >
> > It's because Go is not only game in the world and certainly not only
> > reinforcement learning problem. They are using a widely accepted
> > terminology.
> >
> But a very inappropriate one. I have read Suttons book and all the  
> things I
> know (e.g. TD-Gammon) are completly obfuscated.

Really? I think it is a wonderful example of clear thinking and clear  
writing - I couldn't put the book down. It is the reason I chose to  
study RL, and to come study with Rich Sutton.

> Its maybe suitable to
> present generel concepts, but it is extremly complicated to  
> formulate an
> algorithm in this framework.

Of course everyone hopes that ideas will be presented to them in  
their personal terminology, as it saves them some effort. But we make  
progress in science by unifying and identifying the general concepts.

> But the main point is: I think game programmers should be more  
> proud of
> their work and should present their results in the language of game
> programming. We are the ones which make progress, not these paper  
> tigers.

Isn't there room for both? Shouldn't we present our work within our  
own community, but also make efforts to share our ideas with others?

-Dave

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20070703/d8dc279d/attachment.htm