>As any incomplete search, it can blunder, but why more than any other
>incomplete search?
Not worse, just not a magic bullet.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Dave Dyer wrote:
In cases where the good moves are the "obvious" ones,
you've found them anyway.
Ok. Here I agree.
In other cases, you prune them away.
You are not really pruning, just postponing. Of course
you may overlook moves of genius, who doesn't? But
if your probabilities are co
On Dec 5, 2007 9:39 AM, Dave Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problem with this is that below a few ply, the probabilities are
> all effectively zero. All you're really doing is enshrining the
> prior probabilities used to sort the first few levels.
Why would they be zero? floating-point
The problem with this is that below a few ply, the probabilities are
all effectively zero. All you're really doing is enshrining the
prior probabilities used to sort the first few levels.
In cases where the good moves are the "obvious" ones, you've found them
anyway. In other cases, you prune
The problem with this is that below a few ply, the probabilities are
all effectively zero. All you're really doing is enshrining the
prior probabilities used to sort the first few levels.
In cases where the good moves are the "obvious" ones, you've found them
anyway. In other cases, you prune
just a link :
http://ticktockbraintalk.blogspot.com/2007/11/brain-clock-temporal-resolution-g-power.html
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Raymond Wold wrote:
>> The general rule (in my opinion) is that playing strength will require a
>> huge amount of "power" because that's what A.I. is. This in no way implies
>> that it should not be "efficient" or that it should foolishly squander
>> resources (as an internal combustion engin
> The general rule (in my opinion) is that playing strength will require a huge
> amount of "power" because that's what A.I. is. This in no way implies that
> it should not be "efficient" or that it should foolishly squander resources
> (as an internal combustion engine does.) Instead it shou
I meant to expound a little on this:
> (Not to mention that some algorithms are more scalable that others, I want
> to talk about that in a minute.)
In humans we often try to measure "intelligence" with tests and we call them IQ
tests. It has been said that IQ tests actually only measure yo
Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote:
> Don,
>
> I think it is tenuous to predict, much less emphatically assert, that
> just because the evidence is linear at the lower scale, it remains so
> at higher scales.
This is done all the time in science!Many things in science are
considered facts that haven
Seo,
All I described was the scientific method plus simple probability theory
combined with using intuition to explore unknown unknowns creatively.
For a layman's explanation into this world, see the works by Talib of
"Fooled by Randomness" and "The Black Swan".
Not sure about your analogy
2007/11/23, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Don,
>
> I think it is tenuous to predict, much less emphatically assert, that
> just because the evidence is linear at the lower scale, it remains so at
> higher scales. While it is reasonable to assume, it is not certain. I
> see your point
Don,
I think it is tenuous to predict, much less emphatically assert, that
just because the evidence is linear at the lower scale, it remains so at
higher scales. While it is reasonable to assume, it is not certain. I
see your point that at this time, your theory about it applying to
larger
My experience from doing search only with Valkyria, is that Go is not
different to Chess in the sense that each extra ply really makae a
difference. Improving evaluation almost always means that search gets
deeper in UCT-type programs. Monte-Carlo simulation + knowledge gives
a better signa
Don Dailey wrote:
So I must give up on this. I know if I do the plot again someone will
say, "it only applies to depths we can currently test." "Surely it
will flatten out next year when the new processors come."
I cannot answer to those arguments when no evidence is presented to back
it
Hi Dave,
You are doing it.No matter what evidence is presented, people will
find a way to say it doesn't exist.As I mentioned earlier, the
argument was that didn't apply to chess except for the first 4 or 5 ply
- then when that didn't happen they expanded it to the first 6 or 7 and
to thi
I agree with your exposition of search as it applies to chess, but
I think there is a qualitative difference in Go.
In chess, evaluators can see clear progress, in the form of material
balance and statically determined positional factors, so each additional
ply gives you more opportunity to see
17 matches
Mail list logo
