> I bet that thinking about the problem more would allow you to find an algorithm that works better than genetic algorithms all the time. This is true. It's b

> I bet that thinking about the problem more would allow you to find an algorithm that works better than genetic algorithms all the time. This is true. It's been formalized as the No Free Lunch theorem by Wolpert and Macready. > Genetic algorithms aren't really that brilliant. They are simple, and that's what makes them popular among researchers. There's no formal science behind them. There is a formal science behind them -- conferences, journals, the whole nine yards. The problem is, there's a dominant notion of genetic algorithms that's 25 years out of date, and nobody's been able (or tried too hard) to break through the noise. (Disclaimer: I work in the field.)