On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 14:08 -0200, Mark Boon wrote: > Don, > > Don't get me wrong, I understand very well where you're coming from. > It's very handy to have a concise defintion of a minimalist playing > program that can be used to check correctness. The main reason I > thought Michael's idea was worth considering was that it was both > simpler AND played better AND scaled better. But if in order to get > a > meaningful boost in strength you have to maintain some sort of check > whether a move was played by one side before, then I agree it may be > better to leave his improvement out of the reference specification.
The important idea here of course is the decaying weights, not whether to do the "already played" check. It's clearly simpler not to do the check. And with decaying weights ignoring the check would have less impact anyway. So don't get me wrong either, I definitely like the idea and find it a useful enhancement. I think we will accumulate a number of useful enhancement to the simple reference bot and I want to track them on this web site (the web site that doesn't yet exist :-) - Don > > Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
