On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 21:17 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > But what does this have to do with anything? What we are "arguing" > about is whether it's good to try to estimate probabilities. That's > what you have been critical of. Adding ladder code will improve any > evaluation function if done correctly but that's not relevant if you > believe estimating probability is foolish. > > To the contrary, I believe it is brilliant - in my opinion it is a key > factor in the success of these programs and I would call it a key > breakthrough.
Sorry, it just sounded like you lauded the failures of MC as virtues. I'm not opposed to random playouts as an evaluator. Just undue hope and reliance on it. I think that to make a breakthrough in go AI, we need diversity. Both within a program (use what works when it works, including dropping any randomness at all when pure knowledge or full search would yield results), and between bots. What we *don't* need is people giving up on an approach without even trying it, because others have failed at something similar before. _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
