Author: Michael Yee
Date: 15:07:35 09/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2005 at 14:20:10, Dan Andersson wrote: > Hope I don't catch a lot of flack for saying this. The Fox and Geese paper is >superfluous. > >MvH Dan Andersson I agree. Part of my own negative assessment might stem from the fact that I never heard of the game before (although maybe I'm just ignorant of its wild popularity). Also, it seems weird to apply learning techniques to a game simpler than checkers when they've already been applied to checkers itself. By the way, were you able to figure out what the inputs to their neural network were? Michael
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.