On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM, David Briemann <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm beginning to think that I didn't understand the tree search part
> correctly. You say the tree search generates moves too. I thought moves
> were only generated in playouts and the tree search part was to follow
> already played lines until it reaches a position which has not been played
> out. Probably that's the location were I have too look into.
>
I don't know the gory details of the implementation, but clearly the tree
portion of the search considers all moves (sooner or later) and much has
been written about how MCTS is admissible - at least in theory. That
means it would, if given enough time and memory, play perfect go and will
consider every legal move at some point. But we know that playouts are
not fully random and in many positions will only play a limited number of
moves (perhaps just one) such as when defending atari. So the search
tree portion is not constrained by only what the next playout move will
return.
Read the code - and perhaps any documentation that comes with this program.
One this is clear to me though, if you impose patterns
non-probabilistically on the tree you will weaken the program considerably.
The reason MCTS works so incredibly well is that we have put patterns
in their proper place, as move guidance and not as a plausible move
generator only. The old style weak programs were heavily pattern based.
So I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to do - is this a
study of some kind or a real attempt to improve the program?
Don
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
