Don Dailey wrote:
The rest of your story is rather anecdotal and I won't comment on it.
Are you trying to be politely condescending?
No! Thing is:
1) I disagree with quite a few things which I have no interest in
arguing (much) about because...
2) I wouldn't trust any opinion (including mine) thats not backed by
cold, hard data. It seems this data doesn't publicly exist or we're not
aware of the right publication.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "starting
premise." What is the starting premise?
Better "knowledge" scales better.
I was surprised by the original Mogo-Leela result but the "light"
result seems to show it was a bit of a coincidence.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. What is surprising about the original
Mogo-Leela result? Is it better or worse than you expected?
Given that I started with Mogo playouts and improved them, why did we
end up with 2 parallel lines.
Perhaps Mogo's search is (was?) better.
What I mean is that the evaluation function is of better quality - knows
more about chess in some sense.
Yes, but "knows more" can be something very different from what one
normally thinks.
Would you rather have no evaluation for some feature or an evaluation
that is wrong?
--
GCP
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
