>>> The statement "will never give a strong computer go program." is rather >>> devoid of meaning. You either should define "strong" ... >> OK, I'll add something. By strong I mean dan level. > > In that case, the statement seems downright wrong. We know from both > theory and Dan's experiments that there is no limit to the strength of > UCT with random playouts. Maybe you only meant MC Go without UCT?
No, with UCT; the original statement [1] was qualified with "reasonable CPU resources". In fact, the whole point of the article was that once you reach dan level of play the opponent will be steering the game to positions where random play will give poor evaluations, and the UCT tree will need to be expanded out almost completely - the random playouts are not helping. I don't know if that means 1-dan or 6-dan; at whatever level a player can accurately count a (9x9) game at move 15 (the player will make the assumption of quiet play and standard moves by both sides for the rest of the game) and adjust his style of play accordingly. Darren [1]: "Conclusion" section of: http://dcook.org/compgo/article_the_problem_with_random_playouts.html _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
