Re: [computer-go] MC approach

2007-02-12 Thread Weston Markham
I think that you are essentially correct. However, this is only going to affect a small number of games where two different moves are exactly tied for the best winning percentage, after many playouts. Even if the underlying probabilities are exactly the same, you can't really expect this to

Re: [computer-go] Zobrist hashing with easy transformation comparison

2007-02-12 Thread Jacques BasaldĂșa
Erik van der Werf wrote: And then we get another small questions with a dangerous answer... 1. What makes a question big or small is not a personal preference, but the number of millions times it happens during a game. 1a. Database lookup. Happens very few times (Unfortunately, I must

Re: [computer-go] MC approach

2007-02-12 Thread Heikki Levanto
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:20:43AM -0500, Weston Markham wrote: I think that you are essentially correct. However, this is only going to affect a small number of games where two different moves are exactly tied for the best winning percentage, after many playouts. Even if the underlying

Re: [computer-go] Zobrist hashing with easy transformation comparison

2007-02-12 Thread Erik van der Werf
On 2/12/07, Jacques BasaldĂșa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik van der Werf wrote: And then we get another small questions with a dangerous answer... 1. What makes a question big or small is not a personal preference, but the number of millions times it happens during a game. Can't take a

Re: [computer-go] Monte-Carlo Go simulation

2007-02-12 Thread David Doshay
On 9, Feb 2007, at 4:40 AM, Sylvain Gelly wrote: Alain's point, that knowledge can both help narrow the search to good moves and at the same time steer you away from the best move is absolutely true in SlugGo's case. I completely agree with that. However can we agree that we want a better