I think that most people trying go-programming will try at least to experiment
once with UCT.
The first logical step, is to build an amaf-bot. The other logical step, is to
build a UCT bot. That's exactly the path i followed. And i bet many others have
done that too. So it may be guessed
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 01:34 +, Claus Reinke wrote:
As a relative beginner in these matters, the more I look at AMAF,
the less I like it, and I think that has to do with AMAF ignoring
relative sequencing. By looking at all moves as if they were played
first, it ignores that some moves only
On 21-nov-08, at 09:34, Denis fidaali wrote:
I think that most people trying go-programming will try at least
to experiment once with UCT.
The first logical step, is to build an amaf-bot. The other logical
step, is to build a UCT bot. That's exactly the path i followed.
And i bet many
My first monte carlo programs used ownership info very effectively, but it
can be that by using
AMAF this information is used already.
As a relative beginner in these matters, the more I look at AMAF,
the less I like it, and I think that has to do with AMAF ignoring
relative sequencing. By
Claus,
I think you are raising some very valid questions. I'm a bit
ambivalent towards AMAF for very similar reasons. One thing in
defense of AMAF though, is that it doesn't necessarily need to make
Go-sense to be useful. MC simulations also don't make much Go-sense.
For example, moves
