> The average score can contain a very large proportion of losees if it is > compensated by bigger wins.
yes, it is easy to see how this might cripple the play of an MC player. that 90% territory win that requires 3 opponent blunders is tempting enough to ignore the fact that all other non-blundering lines lead to 0.5 point losses. i wonder if this kind of greediness might, however, be useful for selecting, say, the first move or two in a 9x9 game. the thinking here is that since the endgame is essentially noise at this point, you might as well be greedy before tactics become an issue. that's probably faulty intuition, though. on another note, has anyone just let their MC code rip for a day or two (or maybe a week or more) on the first move alone? i would think that if you ordered the distribution of the resulting list, it would give very good information about how well MC acts as a board-eval function. (i.e. turn off all book lines, turn off all rules about not playing on the first line or two early in the game, etc. etc. turn off all heuristics related to the opening and then print the distribution over the board). what are the top, say, 10 moves on a 9x9 board and how are they distributed, and the top, say, 40 moves on a 19x19 board along with their distribution? if you fold board symmetries into your search, i suppose that you can get a factor of 8 here. my thinking is that if it's anything other than a very smooth distribution among the top moves, that's a good indicator. s. ____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
