On Dec 5, 2007 9:39 AM, Dave Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem with this is that below a few ply, the probabilities are > all effectively zero. All you're really doing is enshrining the > prior probabilities used to sort the first few levels.
Why would they be zero? floating-point types have a huge resolution near zero (they are logarithmic in nature, in some sense), so I don't think you are going to get zeroes fast. In cases where the good moves are the "obvious" ones, you've found them > anyway. In other cases, you prune them away. You DO get wrong answers > much faster this way though. You don't prune them away. You make them look more expensive, which means that they will be analyzed later in an iterative deepening loop.
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
