On May 13, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 13-mei-08, at 14:10, Álvaro Begué wrote:
What others do is the right thing to do. Your method will introduce
some biases.
Could you elaborate what bias it could lead to? I also do the same
as Jason. I did consider the possibility of a bias but couldn't
immediately think of one.
And I was thinking "let's not repeat this topic"...
The probability of picking a point is proportional to 1 + number of
illegal points before it.
In practice, illegal moves are pretty rare until endgame. At that
point, it's a trade off between bias and speed. Random number
generation is not cheap. I have yet to see empirical proof that the
pick and scan is bad. I've tried both methods in the past and saw no
measurable difference in strength.
What good does moving it to the end of the list do? Next time around
it's just as likely to be picked as when left in place. Or do you
only process the 'end' after the 'front' moves are all tried?
The range of the random number is reduced by one after each failed
lookup. Shuffled data has no impact on future use of the array of
empty points.
Mark
_______________________________________________
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/
