UCT with light playouts that just avoid filling eyes is scalable, but much
weaker than the strongest programs at 19x19 go.
The strong programs have incorporated significant go knowledge, to direct
the search to promising lines (usually local), to order moves to try, and to
prune unpromising moves
David Fotland wrote:
UCT with light playouts that just avoid filling eyes is scalable, but much
weaker than the strongest programs at 19x19 go.
The strong programs have incorporated significant go knowledge, to direct
the search to promising lines (usually local), to order moves to try, and
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes,
basically
the
good
programs
prune
in
a
temporary
sense. We
call this
progressive
pruning
because
moves
are
identified
which
are extremely
unlikely
to
be
good,
but
when
the
depth
is
great
enough
they are
still
considered.
terry mcintyre wrote:
I may have misunderstood, so please clarify a point.
Let's say the game hinges on solving a life-and-death problem - if you find
the right move, you win the game; if not, you lose. Many such problems - as
found in real games - are extremely order-dependent; there is
David Fotland wrote:
So, can the strong 19x19 programs please tell us your playout rates? I
expect the higher the rank, the fewer playouts per second. I'm not
interested in 9x9 data, since I think much less go knowledge is needed to
play 9x9. With your playout rate, please include the
Of David Fotland
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:48 AM
To: 'computer-go'
Subject: [computer-go] Go knowledge and UCT
UCT with light playouts that just avoid filling eyes is scalable, but
much
weaker than the strongest programs at 19x19 go.
The strong programs have incorporated significant
