[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Don, > ???? You may, very well, turn out to be right in the end, but I think you are > getting ahead of the data here. And it isn't at all clear to me to how > meaningfully we can compare strength of playouts with strength of alpha-beta > evaluators. > Yes, I'm comparing evaluation functions in chess to play-outs in Go. I think it's reasonable to consider these 2 things equivalent, but if I've learned anything over the years it's that just because something seems reasonable doesn't mean it is!
- Don > ???? This continues to be a very interesting study and I thank you and the > people contributing computer time to it. > > - Dave Hillis > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org> > Sent: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:46 am > Subject: [computer-go] scalability with the quality of play-outs. > > > > It looks like we have a clear trend now. Light play-outs do not scale > as well as heavy play-outs. > > This is the same behavior we get with computer chess. For the last few > decades it has been understood that a chess program with a better > evaluation function improves MORE with increasing depth than one with a > lesser evaluation function so it appears that Go is not unique in this > regard or in it's general ability to scale with CPU power. > > Here are the latest results: > > http://cgos.boardspace.net/study/13/index.html > > > - Don > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
