I actually think Norvig is making a totally different point than you are. I also think (with respect) that it's a much more important point to learn. Where you

I actually think Norvig is making a totally different point than you are. I also think (with respect) that it's a much more important point to learn. Where your point is that there is a better but almost-as-intuitive approach, Norvig's point is basically that a naive application of probability theory is often dramatically easier to implement, and also "good enough" when compared to a (usually much more complicated) rule-based implementation. That's really a great lesson to learn. It's (IMHO) much less valuable to learn that there are better approaches out there -- of course there are.