We've got some decent results (or at least interesting pictures) by
looking at the correlation between controlling a particular point and
winning the game.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Oct 3, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
Do these make sense? And are there other us
>>> For instance, if an intersection belongs to the same colour in all
>>> playouts, chances are
>>> that it is fairly secure (that doesn't mean one
>> shouldn't play there, sacrifices there may have an impact on other
>> intersections).
Ok, that one was well know (ownership maps, territo
Regarding test protocols: I strongly suspect that we'll need to harvest test
cases from computer games, run them past high dan-level players, and find out
what it takes to handle such cases well while still beating other programs.
One of the problems with playing imperfect programs is that one c
>I agree with much of what you say (to the degree that anyone needs to "agree"
>with questions).
Good of you not respond as Kosh might have: "Yes" (warble sound effects;-)
> The discussions on this list dealing with "ownership maps", RAVE and AMAF have
> to do with using additional information f
On Sep 28, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
For instance, if an intersection belongs to the same colour in
all playouts,
chances are that it is fairly secure (that doesn't mean one
shouldn't play
there, sacrifices there may have an impact on other
intersections).
Or,
am
Subject: [computer-go] Using playouts for more than position evaluation?
>From browsing Monte-Carlo Go papers (*), I get the impression that random
playouts are used mainly to approximate an evaluation function, determining
some value for board positions arising in more traditional tree sea
>From browsing Monte-Carlo Go papers (*), I get the impression that random
playouts are used mainly to approximate an evaluation function, determining
some value for board positions arising in more traditional tree search.
Is that correct? It seems somewhat wasteful to calculate all those poss
