From: Stefan Kaitschick <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 8:28:53 AM
on 20.01.2011 05:35, Darren Cook wrote:
> Told you I was getting passionate about this point;-). Though actually
> I wasn't even thinking so much about number of playouts, more about
> other ideas such as first spending a few seconds on static semeai or
> life-death analysis on the root position then using that information to
> influence the playouts the same way RAVE values are used.
>
> Darren
> Semeais and L&D are concerned with groups, eyes, libs, connections ect. MCTS
> is
>concerned with winrates for moves.
> The gap between them is hard to bridge. At a minimum, the "why" will be lost
> in
>translation.
> And if the "why" is lost, it becomes impossible to reason if the original
>canditions are still met.
> This is especially significant because S+L&D information would be propagated
>top-down, not botton-up like RAVE.
> I think the "next generation" bots will have to manage much more complex
>information. It will be paradise lost. :-)
> Stefan
Perhaps the top-down analysis, not the bottom-up MCTS, should be in the
driver's
seat, and the MCTS should be used to compare positions which are considered
"playable" according to the higher-level analysis?
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
