On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Christoph Birk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Don Dailey wrote: > >> I believe the only thing wrong with the current MCTS strategy is that you >> cannot get a statistical meaningful number of samples when almost all games >> are won or lost. You can get more meanful NUMBER of samples by adjusting >> komi, but unfortunately you are sampling the wrong thing - an approximation >> of the actual goal. >> Since the approximation may be wrong or right, your algorithm is not >> scalable. You could run on a billion processors sampling billions of nodes >> per seconds and with no flaw to the search or the playouts still play a move >> that gives you no chances of winning. >> > > I think you got it the wrong way round. > Without dynamic komi (in high ha > ndicap games) even trillions of simulations > with _not_ find a move that creates a winning line, because the is none, > if the opponet has the same strength as you. > WHITE has to assume that BLACK will make mistakes, otherwise there > would be no handicap. I'm not trying to define the problem - that has already been done and I agree with you - if the situation is hopeless the computer will play randomly regardless of the number of playouts. I'm explaining why this solution is imperfect and not scalable. I did not say it would make it play worse than nothing at all. - Don > > > Christoph > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
