The problem here is that you asked mutually contradictory things. You
defined what you meant by a board update, in which you specified a
list of things, and you also asked about "top programs." The top
programs do not do the kinds of evaluations you specify, although
older conventional programs do. The newer programs that are now the
strongest are variations of the Monte Carlo method, which does
statistical sampling, not the kinds of evaluation you specify.
Cheers,
David
On 14, Jan 2008, at 7:41 PM, mingwu wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 6:15 PM, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
slow. UCT (or generically Monte Carlo) can "evaluate" a position
fairly
quickly (maybe 1k-100k per second depending on how heavy the playout
is), they don't give a reliable estimate. To improve this, they
end up
1K ~ 100 K / sec is much faster than "a dozen" / sec of a
conventional program.
Do they calculate dragon safety (eyes, connections, patterns ...)?
if not, the estimate will be VERY unreliable.
But if they do, how can they be this fast compared to the more
conventional programs?
reevaluating positions more than once (maybe 100 times?) to get a more
reliable estimate.
why "reevaluating" the same position?
Sorry, I didn't go into their papers, can people who knows UCT, or
actually working on UCT programs explain in a way that a layman can
understand. Thanks.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
