On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Darren Cook <dar...@dcook.org> wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_search explains it as > > "systematically enumerating all possible candidates for the > > solution". > > > > There is nothing systematic about the pseudo random variation > > selection in MCTS; > > More semantics, but as it is pseudo-random, isn't that systematic? It > only looks like it is jumping around because we are looking at it from > the wrong angle. > > (Systematic pseudo-random generation gets very hard over a cluster, of > course...) > > The selection should be quite deterministic. Randomness is in the playouts, so it only comes in indirectly. With a value net there will be even less variance. > > it may not even have sufficient entropy to guarantee full > > enumeration... > > That is the most interesting idea in this thread. Is there any way to > prove it one way or the other? I'm looking at you here, John - sounds > right up your street :-) > Full enumeration may occur with infinite time & memory, and a growing exploration term for unexplored nodes. Randomness has little to do with it. Anyway, IMO the whole argument is silly and even a bit disrespectful. I don't consider AlphaGo a brute force solution. However, if some hard-pruning would turn AlphaGo from brute force into non-brute force then just implement some provably correct hard pruning rules and you're done (e.g., don't play in unconditional territory, stop the playouts when the position is statically solved, etc.). I have things like that in Steenvreter, but it doesn't feel like that changes the nature of the beast. E.
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
