Re: [computer-go] UCT/MoGo confusion

2006-12-05 Thread David Doshay
This is an echo of my experience with SlugGo, and SlugGo has no MC component. This is just part of trying to program Go, whatever the algorithm. Cheers, David On 5, Dec 2006, at 1:32 PM, Richard Lorentz wrote: confusing to me is that we've tried some simple improvements to the random

Re: [computer-go] UCT/MoGo confusion

2006-12-05 Thread sylvain . gelly
Hello, > Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but if I understand correctly, MoGo > primarily gets its strength in 9x9 go by improving upon the random > simulations by preferring "good" moves over purely random moves during > the random game. It is not exactly that. The claim is that the improvement com

Re: [computer-go] UCT/MoGo confusion

2006-12-05 Thread Yizao Wang
Hi, >Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but if I understand correctly, MoGo >primarily gets its strength in 9x9 go by improving upon the random >simulations by preferring "good" moves over purely random moves during >the random game. Yet I have two results that seem to indicate that it's >not reall

[computer-go] UCT/MoGo confusion

2006-12-05 Thread Richard Lorentz
Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but if I understand correctly, MoGo primarily gets its strength in 9x9 go by improving upon the random simulations by preferring "good" moves over purely random moves during the random game. Yet I have two results that seem to indicate that it's not really that sim