There are a lot of experts here on computer chess. The answer is that method A is overwhelming favorite of chess programs and as far as I know a better way to take advantage of the opponents time has not been found.
The branching factor in chess is more like 6 and with all the selectivty being used it's effectively much less than that. This doesn't mean method A is best for UCT go programs and that's why I checked it out pretty well. At least for Lazarus method A is better. I really wanted to use method B (probably because it was different from the same old thing I was used to in chess) but I am an engineer and I do what works even if I don't like it as much. - Don On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 09:36 -0400, Jason House wrote: > > > On 5/1/07, Joel Veness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My intuition suggests that b) is the better approach, but I > know that > a) works much better in computer chess. > > > Does anyone know why a works much better in computer chess? Does the > benefits of a correct guess (and thinking more deeply than the > opponent) outweigh the benefits of having a little bit of extra > thought about the move they chose? I think I've heard that chess has > a branching factor of 8. In special scenarios where the (1-ply) > branching factor is lower, does the best choice change? > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
