Hi Don, On Dec 10, 2007 9:08 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > /snipped a lot of interesting stuff/ > However MC play-outs is not horizon limited like this. It's stupid to > make it greedy because it may notice that winning the big group leads to > a loss every time and that some other course of action is more productive.
I like the way you make your arguments. I have a question about the above, hopefully you or somebody else will know the answer. Am I confused in my understanding that a weakness of MC evaluation is that due to its random play it will miss sequences where there is only one winning move at each play? This is the way I am interpreting the "nakade problem" discussed in another thread: to keep a dead-by-nakade group dead, one must not miss one single move in the sequence. Of course, in games the nakade example is just one of the simpler variants, most semeai (capturing races) will fall into that category. This uncertainity is what gives the less-than-1 confidence you discussed, but my feeling is that it varies too much with the sequence length -- the answer would be to add some intelligence, like MoGo and the other top programs do. best regards, Vlad _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
