Perhaps it would be possible to infer how the lines would look as perfect play was approached from what the curves looked like for a smaller board size.
At 13:06 09/04/2007, Don wrote:
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 05:30 -0400, Weston Markham wrote: > On 4/8/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > These programs, in theory, will play perfect GO given > > enough time. > > ... and space. I doubt that your current programs would be capable of > storing a large enough game tree to actually converge to the > alpha-beta value. So in practice, it really would level out somewhere > below optimal play, unless you also increase the memory usage, right? > I think that it is still valid to present your chart as representing > the lower portions of curves that do not do this, because you would > presumably scale up the amount of memory used as well as the time, if > you could. > > Weston Yes, you would need more time and memory. But the point is that as long as you can provide time and memory you will get improvement until perfect play is reached. But if it's true that heavy is increasing faster, that will proabably stop being the case MUCH sooner. They will both likely approach perfect play on a very similar slope (like a jet coming in for a landing) which means the distance beetween the two plot lines must start getting closer much sooner. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- This email has been verified as Virus free Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
