Don Dailey wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 11:34 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
All this could be avoided by a simple rule: Instead of using +1 and -1
as the results, use +1000 and -1000, and add the final score to this.
Heikki,
I've tried ideas such as this in the past and it's quite
frustrating - everything that tries to take territory
scoring into account weakens the program.
If you just need to see prettier moves, I think it is
good enough to priortize the moves using some other
algorithm at the root of the tree. If you just cover
the case where a program is "easily winning" or losing
it will play "nicer" but not stronger.
Don, do you have any theories or information about why this is the case?
I would think either way the algorithm should always prefer higher
average win probabilities, but faced with alternatives where the win
probabilities are same or nearly the same but the average winning
margins are higher for one alternative, wouldn't it be better to take
the path with the better margin? I mean it may in fact be wrong about
the win/loss classifications so choosing the better scores would seem to
make sense within reason as long as it's not greedy.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
