There is much to think about with Jason's and Michaels ideas. I favor a more integrated approach than Michael suggests because I think it would be very difficult to essentially have 2 different programs playing the same game (ever play non-consultation doubles in chess or go? It's fun but the level of play stinks. You take turns making a move with your partner and no consultation is allowed.)
I also favor focusing more on the tree portion, but no doubt the play-out portion could improve. I say this because search is more sensitive to early mistakes and work near the root is cheap compared to work nearer leaf nodes. But by all means we should do research on what it takes in the play-outs. - Don Jason House wrote: > I wouldn't stop there. I'd like a static analyzer to add tactical > smarts to playouts. If there's a pre-existing nakade, seki, etc, the > playouts should get it right. > > On Feb 1, 2008 10:34 AM, Michael Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > I think we would all agree that UCT+MC is quite good for strategy > but not so good with tactics. I'd like to see this hybrid engine: > One that starts with a > traditional full-board static analysis (with local tactical > searches), looking for urgent moves. If it finds an urgent move, > it makes it. If the position is > relatively quiet, it uses UCT+MC to find a good strategic play. > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[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/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
