Hello,
On 11/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To give an idea of the scale (at least for MoGo), 70k simulations/move
(with the best parameters) against gnugo 3.6/level 8 gives 89% in 9x9,
68% in 13x13, 32% in 19x19.
This is still not assessment of scalability. Each of
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Also, there are a lot to improvements to do in MC in a quite short term, so I
share the point of view of Rémi, Don and some others when saying that MC
programs will fill the gap with classical programs in 19x19. And this can be
soon. Now, it is the work of the
I think I disagree
with the statement an evaluation that only
understands final scores will not
make a strong go program depending on what you mean
by random.
here i will interject by agreeing with the
statement that an evaluation that only
understands final scores will not make a
Le Vendredi 01 Décembre 2006 21:26, steve uurtamo a écrit :
In fact, I think we say the same thing, simply using
different meaning for the
same word. By random you mean uniformly random,
and I don't mean that, I
simply mean random (in the sense of random
variable).
what distribution
On 11/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To give an idea of the scale (at least for MoGo), 70k simulations/move (with
the best parameters) against gnugo 3.6/level 8 gives 89% in 9x9, 68% in
13x13, 32% in 19x19.
This is still not assessment of scalability. Each of those 70k
