How do you know a move is truly bad? There are almost always exceptions. Or is it a case you can mostly afford to ignore low ranked moves at the cost of the occasional lost game?
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Erik van der Werf < [email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Darren Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> ... I'm going by the "Measuring program strength" thread (Aug > >>> 3013) where people are getting 50% against GnuGo with 1K to 10K > playouts.) > >> > >> Actually, in that thread Hiroshi was saying he only needs 350 > >> playouts, and Detlef was at 700. So it seems you're off by roughly a > >> factor 10. > > > > Yes, I was surprised just how heavy the Aya (and Zen) playouts must be. > > We've almost come full loop, and soon the programs will be traditional > > computer go programs doing a single playout ;-) > > You and Peter seem to focus quite a bit on the 'heavy' playouts while > it really isn't so much about that. The reason why strong programs > have to consider very few moves is knowledge applied in the tree > (selection phase). Simply stated, if you know a move is bad then you > don't have to run simulations on it. > > > > It is a shame the developer's skill is all dead knowledge (not open > > source, no papers). :-( > > The developers aren't dead, so the knowledge isn't dead. Further, I > think most (if not all) of the required knowledge is already 'out > there'; you just need the skills to put things together in the right > way (and figure out which things don't work -- the typical academic > paper won't tell you that). > > Erik > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
