Thanks you. I think that I understand it now :)
On 23:21 Wed 14 Jan , Mark Boon wrote:
You have to understand that the 'start' variable really starts at the
root from the position for which we do the search. So all the moves
'below' the playoutNode are also taken into account. The
Hi Joshua,
Yes, I think it was implicitly understood that these chess competitions
were about creating the best chess playing (non-human) entity. However
human nature being what it is we attach the author to the program and
judge the author through his program.
However, if you create a really
The thing about computer chess is that the swift do not always win the
race. Many times in the past modest hardware has beaten powerful
hardware. Even Deep Blue didn't always win the tournaments it played
in.
They came to one competition and Campbell told me that they had
estimated their
On Jan 15, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Daniel Waeber wrote:
Thanks you. I think that I understand it now :)
On 23:21 Wed 14 Jan , Mark Boon wrote:
You have to understand that the 'start' variable really starts at the
root from the position for which we do the search. So all the moves
'below' the
Hi,
On 11:24 Thu 15 Jan , Mark Boon wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Daniel Waeber wrote:
Thanks you. I think that I understand it now :)
On 23:21 Wed 14 Jan , Mark Boon wrote:
You have to understand that the 'start' variable really starts at the
root from the position
On Jan 15, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Daniel Waeber wrote:
yes, but the weight/color maps stay the same for all updated nodes.
I think the first playoutNode (the one most deep inside the tree) only
should get amaf values for the random playout, the next one form
random
playout + from the first
On 12:53 Thu 15 Jan , Mark Boon wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Daniel Waeber wrote:
yes, but the weight/color maps stay the same for all updated nodes.
I think the first playoutNode (the one most deep inside the tree) only
should get amaf values for the random playout, the
my biased $0.02:
i don't think that the point is to call it even.
someone's got to win, and everyone else has
to come in = 2nd place. moreover, pretending
as if this is the kind of contest that can be won
with money (or hardware) alone is just sour grapes.
one way to make this a contest about
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:47 AM, steve uurtamo uurt...@gmail.com wrote:
this isn't an asymptotic problem requiring an algorithmic
solution. this is a fixed-size board requiring a best of show
answer. whoever gets there, however they get there, deserves
to win, as long as the machines are
Still, in the unlimited class of a rally from Bagdad to Beijing, it is probably
not the dragracer nor the solar car that wins, but the landrover with good road
maps and a GPS.
I agree with most posters that in the end, you have to find the best thing to
do the job. Hardware could play a major
10 matches
Mail list logo
