On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:43 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest of the
program is still improving so quickly.
I had one that worked effectively, but had to be redone if the program
improved substantially, so it was a program. I essentially deep-
search
each new position encountered. So each game played presented a new
book
position to learn which I did off-line. It even had variety - I
didn't
want it too predictable so I deep searched N times, and used the moves
in the same ratio they were chosen. Usually only 1 or 2 moves get
played.
This is a different kind of opening book than I'm thinking of. You
are both talking about cached computation, whereas I consider an
opening book as codified theory and wisdom gained over the entire
history of the game (semeais and joseki). How could adding
established semeai and joseki patterns (probably for early move
selection and bias) to a program make it weaker? If anything, the
global view of full-board MCTS has the potential to make better use
of semeai and joseki patterns than the classical shallow-search
programs.
Self-learned books were also abandoned in chess. Hand tuned books are
labor intensive, often requiring a separate team member to create
them, but the best chess programs all have them.
Ian
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
