sorry, i should have been more clear. an SE can't be any smarter than a computer player, because it could otherwise easily simulate a computer player, as described. would it be slower? yes, by a constant factor that is bounded by the boardsize. this simulation could be completely paralellized, however, so if anyone thinks that i'm wrong, they should build such an SE, and we can easily put together enough boxes to beat all existing computer players.
i point this out because a pet peeve of mine is people who complain about the SE and don't realize that it's equivalently difficult, if not *more* difficult, than building a computer player. s. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Michael Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > Your point is obvious but that's a horrible proof since there are usually > more than one legal moves from which to chose (that means it takes more > time). > > steve uurtamo wrote: >>> >>> As for other things we'd like to see improved, we could build a list. My >>> pet >>> peeve is the KGS "score estimator", which is often wildly wrong. >> >> an SE can't be any smarter than a computer player that runs in the >> amount of time that you're willing to wait for the SE to calculate*. >> so don't expect much. ever. recall that the SE runs locally in your >> client. >> >> s. >> >> * proof: if it were, then it would make a better computer player by >> just evaluating its score estimate at all legal board points and >> choosing the maximum at each move. >> _______________________________________________ >> computer-go mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
