Hello. Hi,
>I would like to confirm your experiments: I have noticed already that >adding shapes of radius > 4 improves prediction a lot, but does not >improve playing strength (from progressive widening). I have not yet tuned progressive widening. This information is helpful for my experiments from now. >Also, even worse than that, for a given set of features, the pattern >urgencies computed by MM are not optimal. That is to say, it is possible >to manually tweak urgencies and get a stronger program. Oh, really!? This is great information. I'll try. >So, as Gian-Carlo puts it, optimizing a Go program is still black magic. >There is no way to avoid playing games to measure playing strength. O.K. I'll pay attention to this information. Thank you very much for much information. Nobuo Araki _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
