Don Dailey wrote:
The rest of your story is rather anecdotal and I won't comment on it.
Are you trying to be politely condescending?
No! Thing is:
1) I disagree with quite a few things which I have no interest in
arguing (much) about because...
2) I wouldn't trust any opinion (including
Alpha-beta gets better with increasing depth even with a random
evaluation.
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~nau/papers/pathology-aaai80.pdf
(this link is from an earlier discussion:
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2005-January/002344.html
)
AvK
: [computer-go] scalability with the quality of play-outs.
Alpha-beta gets better with increasing depth even with a random
evaluation.
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~nau/papers/pathology-aaai80.pdf
(this link is from an earlier discussion:
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2005-January/002344
called
'random' evaluation becomes a 100% correct evaluation function.??
DL
-Original Message-
From: A van Kessel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 4:16 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] scalability with the quality of play-outs.
Alpha-beta
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
The rest of your story is rather anecdotal and I won't comment on it.
Are you trying to be politely condescending?
No! Thing is:
1) I disagree with quite a few things which I have no interest in
arguing (much) about because...
2) I wouldn't
Don Dailey wrote:
BOTH versions have NullMove Pruning and History Pruning turned off
because I feel that it would bias the test due to interactions
between selectivity and evaluation quality (I believe it would make
the strong version look even more scalable than it is.)
There is nothing in
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
BOTH versions have NullMove Pruning and History Pruning turned off
because I feel that it would bias the test due to interactions
between selectivity and evaluation quality (I believe it would make
the strong version look even more scalable than
It looks like we have a clear trend now. Light play-outs do not scale
as well as heavy play-outs.
This is the same behavior we get with computer chess. For the last few
decades it has been understood that a chess program with a better
evaluation function improves MORE with increasing
decades it has been understood that a chess program with a better
evaluation function improves MORE with increasing depth than one with a
lesser evaluation function so it appears that Go is not unique in this
Well, isn't that trivial?
suppose, you have a perfect evaluation function, but you
and I thank you and the
people contributing computer time to it.
- Dave Hillis
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:46 am
Subject: [computer-go] scalability with the quality of play-outs.
It looks
A van Kessel wrote:
decades it has been understood that a chess program with a better
evaluation function improves MORE with increasing depth than one with a
lesser evaluation function so it appears that Go is not unique in this
Well, isn't that trivial?
suppose, you have a perfect
I don't understand how what you describe relates at all to the study.
It doesn't.
It is a reaction to Don's explanation of it.
AvK
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
A van Kessel wrote:
I don't understand how what you describe relates at all to the study.
It doesn't.
It is a reaction to Don's explanation of it.
I don't think what you say can relate in any way to chess
or alpha-beta either.
Alpha-beta gets better with increasing depth even with a random
It looks like we have a clear trend now. Light play-outs do not scale
as well as heavy play-outs.
I don't know if the data are sufficient for this conclusion, but another
element is that heavy playouts are seemingly easier to parallelize than
light playouts. This is tested clearly in
A van Kessel wrote:
decades it has been understood that a chess program with a better
evaluation function improves MORE with increasing depth than one with a
lesser evaluation function so it appears that Go is not unique in this
Well, isn't that trivial?
I don't think it is. It
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
It looks like we have a clear trend now. Light play-outs do not scale
as well as heavy play-outs.
I don't know if the data are sufficient for this conclusion, ...
I don't know how there could be any doubt. The gap between level 1 and
level 13 is:
heavy - 1930
Don Dailey wrote:
It looks like we have a clear trend now. Light play-outs do not scale
as well as heavy play-outs.
This is the same behavior we get with computer chess. For the last few
decades it has been understood that a chess program with a better
evaluation function improves MORE
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
It looks like we have a clear trend now. Light play-outs do not scale
as well as heavy play-outs.
This is the same behavior we get with computer chess. For the last few
decades it has been understood that a chess program with a better
Don Dailey wrote:
First of all, I am not aware of any published work on this specific
thing. There may be some, but I'm not aware of it.
Thanks, this was what I was curious about.
The rest of your story is rather anecdotal and I won't comment on it.
Note that I agree on the starting
I think it depends on how you define smarter. Is that like more
intelligent ?
What I mean is that the evaluation function is of better quality - knows
more about chess in some sense.
Unfortunately, better in the case of chess evaluation is about as clear as
better in the sense of
20 matches
Mail list logo
