> You are right, but from fig 2 of the paper can see, that mc and value > network should give similar results: > > 70% value network should be comparable to 60-65% MC winrate from this > paper, usually expected around move 140 in a "human expert game" (what > ever this means in this figure :)
Thanks, that makes sense. >>> Assuming that is an MCTS estimate of winning probability, that >>> 70% sounds high (i.e. very confident); > >> That tweet says 70% is from value net, not from MCTS estimate. I guess I need to go back and read the AlphaGo papers again; I thought it was still an MCTS program at the top-level, and the value network was being used to influence the moves the tree explores. But from this, and some other comments I've seen, I have the feeling I've misunderstood. Darren
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
