On 6/6/07, Rémi Coulom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if other people had thought about this before...
>
> Álvaro.
Yes, I did it in the beginning. But I found that it is faster to divide
by more than two. Currently, I keep the probability of the whole board,
each line, and each point. It is simple, and more efficient than a
binary tree.
Rémi
I'm not clear on how you efficiently index into which line to select. I
think the discussion here is still relevant to that. If we take a simple
example of a 5x5 board where the line weights are {15,10,30,20,25}, and I
roll the dice and compute 44 (out of 100), I don't know to jump instantly to
the 3rd entry; other information is needed if a sequential check is to be
avoided. Tokens of 5 could make it easy to pick a number from 1 to 20 and
then jump to the row owned by that token, and a binary tree could result in
~3 comparisons... not much better than a sequential check at such a small
number of lines.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
