> I think you are right, though. In my opinion, calling MCTS "brute > force" isn't really fair, the brute force portion really doesn't > work and you need to add a lot of smarts both to the simulations and > to the way you pick situations to simulate to make things work.
In chess, basic min-max, with an evaluation function that is just the point values for pieces I learnt as a lad (9 for queen, 5 for rook, 3 for knight/bishop, 1 for pawn) would never have beaten Kasparov. (Or could it? I've not followed computer chess closely enough to be sure, but I did hear that Deep Blue was fairly sophisticated software, not just a lot of hardware.) Darren P.S. Isn't "brute force" the term used to mean that you can see measurable improvements in playing strength just by doubling the CPU speed (and/or memory or other hardware restraint). Alpha-beta with all the trimmings, and MCTS with a good pattern library, both seem to qualify. _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
