Duhhh ! When I say a minimax solver, I mean a program witch returns a random move UNTIL it has completed its search, as I explained in a previous post. You all agreed this program didnt scale, so why are you saying, all of a sudden, that it DOES scale now !? Anyway I'm fed up with this discussion now, this is so too much pain and way too frustrating.
----- Message d'origine ---- De : Alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> À : computer-go <[email protected]> Envoyé le : Mercredi, 23 Janvier 2008, 9h15mn 41s Objet : Re: [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable ... is a troll 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/ _____________________________________________________________________________ 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/
