Peter, I also want to point out that I DO do full KO testing, but it's just in the tree search - it's the Monte/Carlo part that's a waste of time.
I say that because monte/carlo is a RANDOM search, it's not going to deal with any positional finesses and such. It's too expensive even to maintain the incremental hash key - so I have 2 move make routines, one that maintains it and one that doesn't. - Don On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 18:13 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 14:09 -0800, Peter Drake wrote: > > > In the search tree part of the game, (not the random simulation > > > part) I > > > make state copies, do Zobrist hashing and full repetition checks and > > > other stuff - the tree part is cheap. > > > > Agreed -- the playing of moves is the expensive part. > > > > > No matter how you implement undo - it will cost you dearly whether > > by > > > state copy or keeping stacks of information updated. > > > > Are you one of those who advocates ignoring the ko rule during MC > > searches? > > Not simple KO, but more than simple KO is a waste of valuable processor > time. > > Whatever you are doing or not doing, you probably could be 3X faster. > I don't know why you are happy with 10,000, especially when most of the > programs get more with 1 processor. > > Unless of course you are getting something for it, such as valuable > information that can be used to improve the monte carlo part of the > search. > > - Don > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
