Le mercredi 23 janvier 2008, ivan dubois a écrit :
> Hi Alain,
> Sorry for being so insistant :
You should browse the archive of the list, nearly the same discussion about
infinite and scalability happenned in 2007.
>
> >No i just said that, unless i really understood nothing, i read here from
> >well
> >known competent persons that MC+UCT scales infinitely , and would reach
> >perfect
> >play with infinite computational resources, and this is theoretically proven
> >(which is not the case for classical program like our beloved GNU Go).
>
> This is absolutely true. Now this can also be said for a mini-max solver (my
> point).
Don Dailey answered better than i could do, yes minimax also scales.
>
> >So MC+UCT scales. (even against humans, martians, trolls, computers, gods
> >... :)
> The conclusion does not follow.
Ah ? Why not ? what is wrong in the reasonning ?
Should i think :
" It scales in theory so it does NOT scale in practice " ?
> The fact that it eventualy reaches perfect play with enough computing power
> does NOT mean that it scales well.
> Proof : A mini-max solver does reach perfect play with enough computing
> power BUT does not scale.
we don"t have the same informations. For Minimax scales too, maybe the
improvement curve has a smaller slope than MC+UCT curve, but
>
> Actualy, this theoritical property is a NESCESSARY condition for UCT
> to scale, but it is not a SUFFICIANT condition. The scalability of
> UCT has been "proven" by its outstanding results
From a pure logical point of vue
- Positive experiment are never a valid proof. They are only examples that
makes one feel his theory is right.
- Only counter example are proof that the theory is wrong.
> and Don's experiments, not by mathematics.
Are you a troll ?
Alain
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
