On Jan 30, 2008 4:35 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Heikki Levanto wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:23:35PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > > > >> Having said that, I am interested in this. Is there something that > >> totally prevents the program from EVER seeing the best move? I don't > >> mean something that takes a long time, I mean something that has the > >> theoretical property that it's impossible to every find the best move, > >> even given eternity? > >> > > > > Someone, I think it was Gunnar, pointed out that something like this: > > > > 5 | # # # # # # > > 4 | + + + + + # > > 3 | O O O O + # > > 2 | # # + O + # > > 1 | # + # O + # > > ------------- > > a b c d e f > > > > Here black (#) must play at b1 to kill white (O). If white gets to move > > first, he can live with c2, and later making two eyes by capturing at > b1. > > > > Depending on the definitions, b1 can be seen as an 'eyelike' point, and > will > > not be considered in any playouts. No amount of UCT-tree bashing will > make > > the program play it. > > > You are totally incorrect about this. First of all, saying that "no > amount of UCT-tree bashing will discover this move" invalidates all the > research and subsequent proofs done by researchers. You may want > publish your own findings on this and see how well it flies.
Actually, I think you're "totally incorrect". (Please try to be kinder when responding to others?) Regardless of the exact example, _if_ pruning rules exclude a move, then an engine will never play it. That means that for that situation, they're not scalable. That may be a big if but will definitely affect some bot implementations. Progressive widening and soft-pruning rules probably get around this kind of limitation.
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
