> [The pro] was also a bit "unlucky" in the sense that Leela did not understand > it > was dead lost. > > I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have > put up more of a fight :-)
My first impression of watching the game was that Leela was handicapped by having a handicap. By that I mean it would have seen itself so far ahead for the first few moves that is was playing arbitrarily. This is a direct consequence of the UCT algorithm playing for the win, instead of trying to maximize the score. I'm fine with that (please see the archives for numerous passionate discussion on the subject), but surely you need an opening book to allow for the fact that evaluations are going to have a high error margin in the early game? (I'll go out on a limb and say black 3 was a mistake; I'm sure it is a win at 0.5pt komi, but I strongly suspect it is dubious at 5.5pt komi or higher.) >From another angle: if a UCT computer program is being given a handicap against a stronger player it should lie to itself about the komi at the start. It could then gradually adjust komi so it is at the correct value by the early middle game (e.g. move 6 in 9x9 go, move 30 in 19x19 go). Or it could keep adjusting komi (until it reaches the actual komi) so that it thinks it is only just winning. Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
