> I imagine it would be fairly easy to swap from MCTS to a CGT solver once it > could be applied.. Or is this not interesting for some reason?
It only becomes usable once the game is fairly much decided. (Though, you can construct artificial positions where it gives you a correct move is non-obvious (*) ) IIRC Martin's papers tried to extend it back a bit earlier in the game, and that is the state of the art as far as I know. In contrast MCTS, while theoretically only giving you a rough estimate, is in fact giving you a Good Enough estimate of the score by the time CGT could be used. Darren *: http://senseis.xmp.net/?MathematicalGo I guess you've already read Chilling Gets the Last Point ? There is also a lot on Sensei's Library: http://senseis.xmp.net/?CGTPath I spent some time trying to extend the ideas, when first learning of CGT, and got nothing worth reporting. They did inspire some of the work I did on life and death analysis; it was intellectually stimulating, but I kept coming back to the same core issue: you need to do search, to handle the kind of situations that come up in real games. _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
