>
> It's easy to construct problems that any program cannot
> handle including
> yours.
Of course, but understanding fights like the attached ones is essential to
strong play on 19x19.
>
> You have to understand that Monte Carlo is not great at
> tactics,
I do understand this. That's my point :)
>
> I can't understand why people think a program has to either
> search or evaluate. The only thing any program does is
> evaluate and that's all
> there is. I used to call my search routine eval() because
> that's all
> it is.
I agree with you. Strong programs have to search, and they also need
knowledge in the evaluation.
All knowledge and no search is just as bad as no knowledge and deep search.
>
> I know you understand this too - I think you are just trying to pick a
> fight.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. I was responding to a bunch of people who
think that really fast random search with a stupid evaluation will crush
traditional programs next year.
Monte carlo has a place in go programs, and is a very useful technique, but
I dont think it can make a strong program all by itself.
>
> My position is that knowledge engineering is at a steep point of
> diminishing returns. How much improvement do you think
> you will gain
> with a few more years of adding more patterns? Are you expecting
> major breakthroughs which will allow you to reduce the searching that
> you do now?
I agree with you that knowledge engineering is diminishing returns. I dont
think that adding more knowledge to existing programs will make them strong
any time soon. But there is a lot of simple basic useful knowledge, like
counting liberties, and it seems to me that the monte-carlo enthusiasts are
ignoring this.
My point with the file I attached is not that it's a difficult position.
These fights are incredibly easy if you just add a few dozen lines of code
to count liberties correctly. To me it's as if a weak chess player says, my
program doesnt need to understand basic pawn structure evaluation. It
looks really complicated. I'll just search faster than you. There is some
basic knowledge that is not complex and is very useful.
-David
>
> - Don
>
>
>
> > David
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> David Doshay
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:49 PM
> > > To: computer-go
> > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Monte-Carlo is the future of 19x19
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that MC will be useful on 19x19 if a clever way
> to restrict
> > > it to
> > > sub-game searches can be implemented.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 30, Nov 2006, at 1:51 PM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chrilly wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I believe that MC will be the only way to write a GO
> > > program in the
> > > >>> near future leaving the other stuff in the dust (like
> Mogo has
> > > >>> with 9x9
> > > >>> Monte Carlo Go.) This happened in computer chess
> several times,
> > > >>> someone came up with some breakthrough idea, proved it
> > > with actual
> > > >>> results and everyone else had to play follow the leader
> > > to catch up.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Do you think its also the future of 19x19 or only of
> 9x9 (maybe
> > > >> 13x13)?
> > > >>
> > > >> Chrilly
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> computer-go mailing list
> > > >> computer-go@computer-go.org
> > > >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > > > I am certain it is for 19x19. Just look at the KGS
> games of Mogo
> > > > on 19x19. I played one game against it, and won. I got
> the feeling it
> > > > was slightly easier to beat than GNU Go, but that may
> be because I
> > > > am used to the way Monte-Carlo programs play. I predict
> > > that in one
> > > > year or two, classical programs will be far behind MC
> programs on
> > > > 19x19. Maybe it will take less than one year.
> > > >
> > > > Rémi
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > computer-go mailing list
> > > > computer-go@computer-go.org
> > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > computer-go mailing list
> > > computer-go@computer-go.org
> > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > computer-go mailing list
> > computer-go@computer-go.org
> > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
