Hello Christoph, I agree with you that this algorithm is not scalable if you use this definition, but :
When people say that MC infinite scalability is mathematicaly proven, they do not refer to the definition you give, they refer to the definition I used. If you want to do a theoretical analysis of MC scalability with your definition, you will first have to define exactly what you call "a better move". This might be tough. Even if you managed to do that, you would see that MC is not scalable with this definition, because obviously, more computing power can, in some occasions, provide a worse move (what ever you call a worse move). Ivan ----- Message d'origine ---- De : Christoph Birk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> À : computer-go <[email protected]> Envoyé le : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 22h50mn 29s Objet : Re: Re : [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable ... is a troll On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, ivan dubois wrote: > in theory, infinitely scalable. For example, the folowing algorithm is > infinitely scalable : > Analyse the complete mini-max tree of the game. If enough time to > finish, returns the correct move, if not, return a random move. > Now, is this algorithm really scalable, in practive ? Of course not. I have to disagree. The above algorithm is not scalable in a sense that more time leads to better moves. Ie. It returns a random move given 1 minute, 1 hour or 1 day of (current) CPU time, while a scalable algorithm should return a better move the longer it runs. Christoph _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _____________________________________________________________________________ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
