> I understand the definition of Monte Carlo. But when people talk about > Monte Carlo go, they mean programs that evalutate random games, not > professional games.
To be completely precise, professional games are also random games (if it was not, all games between two players would always be the same). "random" does not mean "uniformly". Even deterministic players are "random" (P=1 for one move, and 0 for all the others). I know that you know that, it is only to be precise on the terms used. > You are making the same point I made. What I meant to > say is that using random games and an evaluation that only understands > final scores will not make a strong go program. There needs to be some > knowledge in the evaluation making the games examined non-random. There > are fights in 19x19 games that need a little knowledge to evaluate. Random > game monte carlo isn't enough. Here, I am not sure about the meaning of "random" for you. 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. Perhaps we are making the same points, perhaps not :). Sylvain _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
