On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 09:01 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote: > > 2. I use a hybrid form of all-moves-as-first and others have > > reported no improvement. The behavior I get is that it > > plays much stronger at low simulations and in extensive > > testing I could not find a high enough level for the version > > that does not do all-as-first to make it play as strongly. > > So for me there is no reason whatsoever to stop using > > all-as-first, even at ridiculous levels. > > I have never really understood the idea in all-in-first. That seems to > fly in the face of the common sense idea that the order of moves is > important. But perhaps I have got it wrong in my mind. I will have to > study more.
The idea is that in a random simulation, if all moves have equal chance of being selected, there is little difference WHEN you play a move. Also in GO, it's usually the case that if a move is good for you, it's also good for the opponent, so you get a situation where the simulation simply rewards the player who happens to get there first - which is usually an appropriate distinction. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
