On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:06:40PM +0200, Tapani Raiko wrote:
Let my try again using the handicap example. Let's say MC player is given
a huge handicap. In the simulations, it is winning all of its games, so
there is no information helping to select the next move.
This situation happens in
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 5:34 AM
Subject: [computer-go] MC approach (was: Monte Carlo (MC) vs Quasi-Monte Carlo
(QMC))
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:06:40PM +0200, Tapani Raiko wrote:
Let my try again using
I should have mentioned that I have only tested on 9x9. For larger boards,
I don't know.
- Dave Hillis
`
Intuitively, it seems like this should work. You only give the winning
margin a small weight, or only use it to break ties, or only apply it after the
game
If I recall correctly, someone spoke of constraining the opening moves to the
3rd,4th,and 5th lines in the absence of nearby stones, or something to that
effect. What was the impact of this experiment? I notice the recent discussion
of the need for a lot of thinking time to find good opening
What sort of sampling was used for the playouts? For this variable (
incorporating some information about the score vs only the win-loss variable ),
does it make a difference whether playouts are totally random or incorporate
varying degrees of similitude to good play?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
terry mcintyre wrote:
If I recall correctly, someone spoke of constraining the opening moves
to the 3rd,4th,and 5th lines in the absence of nearby stones, or
something to that effect. What was the impact of this experiment?
For what it's worth, I tried a number of experiments along these
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MC approach (was: Monte Carlo (MC) vs Quasi-Monte
Carlo (QMC))
What sort of sampling was used for the playouts? For this variable (
incorporating some information about the score vs only the win-loss variable ),
does it make a difference whether playouts are totally
