John Whelan wrote on Tue, Dec 15, 2015 04:28 PM UTC:
Muller, your use of the phrase "proper evaluation criteria" seems
arbitrary. Obviously, evaluation criteria exist, or some Go players would
not be better than others. To label such criteria improper, merely because
humans can assess them better, would sound like computer sour grapes, if
not for my conviction (inspired by my reluctance to accept that computers
can already do anything humans can) that you are probably human.
Go also has short-term goals and short-term captures. But computers
cannot foresee long term, and even the relative short-term might not be short enough. The branching factor, as
well as the number of moves involved in even relatively short-term victories, is a part of this.
In Chess, gaining material is indeed "a way to go" as an interim goal for those (human or computer) who cannot foresee the final checkmate. But it can be a trap,
leading in the longer run to checkmate or loss of even more material. The
problem, in Chess, is that the computer can see far enough ahead to know
the difference. Again, the branching factor, and the number of moves
involved, is a factor.
Still, your point about material is well taken. In Chess, material gains
are almost always good, and if there is a trap, it is generally sprung
quickly or not at all. When it is sprung quickly, a computer can foresee it. But consider that this need not be equally true in
all types of Chess. For example if you play on a larger board, with more
geographically localized pieces, then a trap might take longer to spring,
and the warning that how much material you have might be less important than where your
pieces are on the board, is something that might remain true for a longer period.
