True. It performed better at the times we tried, and vanilla MCTS did
not appear close to catching up. In the theoretical limit, though,
MCTS is clearly a richer representation.
On Jun 30, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Peter Drake <dr...@lclark.edu>
wrote:
Yes -- as stated, this new method is not (yet?) competitive with
cutting-edge MCTS (e.g., RAVE and fancy domain-specific playouts).
Our claim
is merely that it beats vanilla UCT.
That claim can't be true in general. Sure you can beat a weak
implementation at some fixed playout level but in general (e.g., as
the number of simulations grows much larger) its simply not possible
because the linear classifier alone doesn't have the capacity to
represent a big tree (which eventually it must be able to do to infer
deep tactics).
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
