> > It is not what we said. At least it is not what I meant, and > I think it is > true for the others.
I was reacting to the two statements below. I didn't realize that this opinion was not generally shared by the people developing monte carlo programs. >> 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 >> 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. > > I think there is sometimes a misunderstanding of what Monte-Carlo is. > Monte-Carlo is a method to approximate an expectation using a > finite sample > of randomly drawn points. No more, no less. > It does not talk about "stupidity", especially it does not > specify the > distribution against which you are computing your > expectation. If the distribution is pro players playing > against themselves, MC with 3 > simulations per move and one ply search will crush the best > human player by > far. I understand the definition of Monte Carlo. But when people talk about Monte Carlo go, they mean programs that evalutate random games, not professional games. You are making the same point I made. What I meant to say is that using random games and an evaluation that only understands final scores will not make a strong go program. There needs to be some knowledge in the evaluation making the games examined non-random. There are fights in 19x19 games that need a little knowledge to evaluate. Random game monte carlo isn't enough. David > > Sylvain > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
