On 20.12.2014 09:43, Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
If MC has shown anything, it's that computationally, it's much easier to suggest a good move, than to evaluate the position.
Such can only mean an improper understanding of positional judgement. Positional judgement depends on reading (or MC simulation of reading) but the reading has a much smaller computational complexity because localisation and quiescience apply.
The major aspects of positional judgement are territory and influence. Evaluating influence is much easier than evaluating territory if one uses a partial influence concept: influence stone difference. Its major difficulty is the knowledge of which stones are alive or not, however, MC simulations applied to outside stones should be able to assess such with reasonable certainty fairly quickly. Hence, the major work of positional judgement is assessment of territory. See my book Positional Judgement 1 - Territory for that. By designing (heuristically or using a low level expert system) MC for its methods, territorial positional judgement by MC should be much faster than ordinary MC because much fewer simulations should do. However, it is not as elegant as ordinary MC because some expert knowledge is necessary or must be approximated heuristically. Needless to say, keep the computational complexity of this expert knowledge low.
-- robert jasiek _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
