Quoting Álvaro Begué <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Dec 13, 2007 2:28 PM, Forrest Curo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's the approach I believe to be more human-like. Not necessarily the
> playing style.
Human beings "chunk".
What all this fuss suggests to me is a "meta-mc" program... You
include routines that work out good sequences, as a human would--and
then you have the random part of the program include the more
promising sequences, where applicable, as if they were individual moves.
You can't do that in two-player games, unless you are convinced that the
opponent is forced throughout the entire sequence.
Humans do a sort of skinny alpha-beta, automatically narrowing the
search by applying constraints based on what they see as possible
outcomes. (In the case of a ladder, most of this is searching a long
branch one-move wide!) So if an opponent fails to follow the sequence
you've expected, he might be on to something you missed, or he may
have missed the point of the sequence. An unexpected move thus
suggests a pair of local searches, concentrating both on the vicinity
of that move and on the vicinity of the expected move.
But for a program to do something similar, it does need some way of
arriving at an "idea" of what moves in a certain area could reasonably
be expected to accomplish. Seeing where the groups end up in a large
number of playoffs might give a hint...(?)
Forrest Curo
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
