2009/8/12 Don Dailey <dailey....@gmail.com>: > > If the program makes decisions about the best way to win N points, there > is no guarantee that this is ALSO the best way to win N+1 points.
Although this is obviously true, that doesn't automatically mean it's not the best approach. Because there's a hidden assumption in there. And that is it's not the best way to win by N+1, given proper play by the opponent thereafter. If not perfect, then at least as strong as the stronger player. Whatever your strategy, even when you catch up a lot there's no guarantee the opponent will keep making mistakes enough for you to win. Human players generally do keep track whether they seem to be catching up 'enough' and will take more risk when progress is not in line with the progress of the game. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that adjusting komi is the perfect answer. But what apparently is observed (I never tried myself) is that currently MCTS does poorly in handicap games. So the question is whether adjusting the handicap would improve performance. The positions seem to be entrenched. But I have yet to see conclusive evidence or persuasive arguments one way or the other. Maybe I should ask first, for clarity sake, is MCTS performance in handicap games currently a problem? Mark _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
