Don Dailey wrote:
I am concerned that the current study is, as Jacques has so ably
described, a study of a restricted game where nakade and certain
other moves are considered to be illegal; this restricted game
approaches the game of Go, but the programs have certain blind
spots which humans can and do take advantage of. These aren't
computer-specific blind spots; humans train on life-and-death
problems in order to gain an advantage over other humans also.
This is good news and nothing to worry about. You are basically
saying mogo has a bug, and if this bug is fixed then we can expect
even better scalability. So any success here can be viewed as a
lower bound on it's actual rating.
If a nakade fixed version of mogo (that is truly scalable) was in the
study, how much higher would it be in your estimation?
I wanted to come back here because in the heat of the discussion it's
easy to forget what you are actually discussing about.
I think you wanted to make the point that it's possible to fix MoGo that
it considers all moves in the UCT tree, and this scales to perfect play.
This in turns means that the scaling results are to be considered a
lower bound.
One thing I want to point out to that is that "fixing" MoGo in the sense
described could mean that its curve is a lot lower.
The question is if the curve would have a different steepness. For sure
it cannot actually flatten out at the same point!
--
GCP
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
