Thanks.
- Message d'origine
De : Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : computer-go
Envoyé le : Mercredi, 23 Janvier 2008, 18h07mn 27s
Objet : Re: Re : Re : [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable ... is a troll
On Jan 23, 2008 3:44 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jan 23, 2008 3:44 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is still nonsense. UCT in actual real world "PRACTICE" responds
> dramatically to more hardware, how can you say it's not clear whether
> it's scalable in practice?
In fairness, he didn't say that. What he said was that our b
that this simple logic has no appeal to most people on this list.
- Message d'origine
De : Erik van der Werf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : computer-go
Envoyé le : Mercredi, 23 Janvier 2008, 15h21mn 37s
Objet : Re: Re : [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable ... is a troll
On
On Jan 23, 2008 2:45 PM, ivan dubois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I say a minimax solver, I mean a program witch returns a random move
> UNTIL it has completed its search, as I explained in a previous post.
A plain minimax solver (without enhancements like iterative deepening)
doesn't return
this discussion now, this is so too much pain and way
too frustrating.
- Message d'origine
De : Alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : computer-go
Envoyé le : Mercredi, 23 Janvier 2008, 9h15mn 41s
Objet : Re: [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable ... is a troll
Le mercredi
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:17:48PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Don't make too much of it. A 2-Dan program will play 2-Dan games, not just
> occasionally generate a 2-Dan move. :)
True. Most weak beginners start the game with a move that is often seen in
professional play. Usually 3-3, 3-
Le mercredi 23 janvier 2008, ivan dubois a écrit :
> Hi Alain,
> Sorry for being so insistant :
You should browse the archive of the list, nearly the same discussion about
infinite and scalability happenned in 2007.
>
> >No i just said that, unless i really understood nothing, i read here from
NLY if
>> the play-out part does not have severe misconceptions. So i think that
>> currently, only MC based on uniform playouts is infinitely scalable.
>> It is well know that even Mogo has troubles with big eyes (he thinks a big
>> eye gives life, wich is false). This prob
Hi Alain,
Sorry for being so insistant :
>No i just said that, unless i really understood nothing, i read here from well
>known competent persons that MC+UCT scales infinitely , and would reach perfect
>play with infinite computational resources, and this is theoretically proven
>(which is not
ity.
Ivan
- Message d'origine
De : Weston Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : computer-go
Envoyé le : Mercredi, 23 Janvier 2008, 0h41mn 08s
Objet : Re: Re : [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable ... is a troll
(I typed the following up earlier today, before other people cast s
roubles with big eyes (he thinks a big eye
gives life, wich is false). This problem can not be solved with more computing
power (excep absurdly big, of course you can always mini-max to the end).
----- Message d'origine
De : Alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : computer-go
E
Le mardi 22 janvier 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> >Infinite scalability is a theoricaly proved property, so please
> >don't feed the troll :-)
>
> Are you saying that the scalability is linear between number of playouts and
> ranking?
>
No i just said that, unless i really understood nothi
t; It is well know that even Mogo has troubles with big eyes (he thinks a big
> eye gives life, wich is false). This problem can not be solved with more
> computing power (excep absurdly big, of course you can always mini-max to the
> end).
>
> - Message d'origine
&
m can not be solved with more
> computing power (excep absurdly big, of course you can always mini-max to the
> end).
>
> ----- Message d'origine ----
> De : Alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> À : computer-go
> Envoyé le : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 22h13mn 26s
&
n 30s
Objet : Re: Re : Re : [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable ... is a troll
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, ivan dubois wrote:
> When people say that MC infinite scalability is mathematicaly proven,
> they do not refer to the definition you give, they refer to the
> definition I used.
No,
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, ivan dubois wrote:
When people say that MC infinite scalability is mathematicaly proven,
they do not refer to the definition you give, they refer to the
definition I used.
No, they don't. At least not most people on this list.
Christoph
___
occasions,
provide a worse move (what ever you call a worse move).
Ivan
- Message d'origine
De : Christoph Birk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : computer-go
Envoyé le : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 22h50mn 29s
Objet : Re: Re : [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable ... is a troll
On Tue, 22
you can always mini-max to the
> end).
>
> - Message d'origine
> De : Alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> À : computer-go
> Envoyé le : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 22h13mn 26s
> Objet : Re: [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable ... is a troll
>
> Le mardi
>I think Remi posted a game of CrazyStone on 19x19 commented by one pro
>who said "this move is 2 dan level".
Don't make too much of it. A 2-Dan program will play 2-Dan games, not just
occasionally generate a 2-Dan move. :)
>Infinite scalability is a theoricaly proved property, so pl
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, ivan dubois wrote:
in theory, infinitely scalable. For example, the folowing algorithm is
infinitely scalable :
Analyse the complete mini-max tree of the game. If enough time to
finish, returns the correct move, if not, return a random move.
Now, is this algorithm reall
e : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 22h13mn 26s
Objet : Re: [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable ... is a troll
Le mardi 22 janvier 2008, David Fotland a écrit :
>
> The UCT-MC programs do particularly well against traditional programs
> because they expose the brittleness inherent in the pattern
Le mardi 22 janvier 2008, David Fotland a écrit :
>
> The UCT-MC programs do particularly well against traditional programs
> because they expose the brittleness inherent in the pattern databases they
> use. Strong humans are not so easily beaten by playing unconventional and
> somewhat inferior
22 matches
Mail list logo
