On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:29 -0400, Robert Waite wrote: > Okay... congratulations... you are right... if you are able to > generate a completely pruned tree using alpha/beta pruning... you > don't have to generate the whole game tree. But exactly how are you > going to do this? In chess... you can look 9 moves in and quickly > evaluate if a branch is looking good or is looking bad (wow... you > just lost a rook three moves in). It seems you can't really do this > until pretty deep in the tree for go. Plenty of moves would look bad > 20 moves deep.. but would turn out to be good 80 moves later. How can > you know if a move is good or not until you move towards the end of a > branch? Isn't this just a little computationally expensive? You need > some sort of early evaluation function... and we don't seem to have > that yet.
I'm only responding to your comment that you have to look at the entire tree. You DON'T have to look at the entire tree in order to get a perfect answer and find the very best move with 100% certainty. That's all I'm saying. It seems like you have a gift for obfuscation. And yes, of course it's computationally expensive even with alpha beta pruning which saves many orders of magnitude times more work. It's trivial to write either a mini-max or alpha beta searcher program that searches to the end of the game. It doesn't require much memory either because you only store 1 line at a time. Of course such a program will not finish executing in the lifetime of this universe. But it is easy to write. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
