I think of it as a continuum going from "light" to "heavy." Pure random
playouts are the lightest. But then you add some rules about filling in eyes,
then maybe discourage self-atari,... and the playouts keep getting heavier. I
agree with you that the current crop of MC engines are not nearly as
go-knowledge naive as the name implies.
- Dave Hillis
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:22 PM
Subject: [computer-go] Monte-Carlo Go Misnomer?
Is MC Go a misnomer for programs in this genre not using simple random
playouts and combining with other techniques like pattern matching?
Technically, does the general Monte-Carlo method require random or
pseudo-random sampling?
If so, should we dub a new name for these non-random deep play-out
sampling based go programs? Maybe Quasi-MC or Directed
Sampling...
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam
and email virus protection.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
