I think you are right, because MC score becomes precise when only a few available moves left. However, do you search to the depth of the end of the game, or to the extent that MC score becomes precise? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 10:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The question here is not about UCT(yes, it gaves the same rusults as > alpha-beta). It's about MC scoring. It has not been proved that MC > score will generate the optimum play with large enough simulation. MC is obviously wrong as an evaluation function - it is not guaranteed to return a correct or even a good score no matter how many simulations. However, UCT eventually turns into a pure tree where MC is not a factor. These programs, in theory, will play perfect GO given enough time. - Don > Now the best super computer uses about 500,000 CPUs, which is 2 to the > 18th power of computation increase. Don's curve can be tested to the > number 18 now. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
