In the opening, among reasonably clueful players, the branching factor is much closer to 10 than to 361.
Terry McIntyre <terrymcint...@yahoo.com> On general principles, when we are looking for a solution of a social problem, we must expect to reach conclusions quite opposed to the usual opinions on the subject; otherwise it would be no problem. We must expect to have to attack, not what is commonly regarded as objectionable, but what is commonly regarded as entirely proper and normal. – John Beverley Robinson, 1897 ________________________________ From: Michael Williams <michaelwilliam...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Implications of a CPU vs Memory trend on MCTS You have made the assumption that the move that your opponent selected was on average explored equally as much as all of the other moves. That seems a bit pessimistic. One would expect that the opponent selected a strong move and one would also expect that your tree explored that strong move more than it did other moves. I'm not saying keeping the tree is a huge benefit. I'm just saying that I don't think your 99% number is fair. Dave Dyer wrote: > At 02:13 PM 5/12/2009, Michael Williams wrote: >> Where does your 99% figure come from? > > 1/361 < 1% > > by endgame there are still easily 100 empty spaces > on the board. > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
