Hi,
http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~lew/
Highlights fo v0.99
- ko (superko) checking
- undo command.
(stack_board.cpp)
I plan to release simplest MC player.
Do You think it is a good idea?
It should be In the same pack or in a separate one?
Should it use all as first ?
Regards,
Łukasz Lew
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 05:49:00PM +0100, ?ukasz Lew wrote:
> http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~lew/
>
> Highlights fo v0.99
> - ko (superko) checking
> - undo command.
> (stack_board.cpp)
Looks promising!
> I plan to release simplest MC player.
> Do You think it is a good idea?
Yes, absolutely! I might
Łukasz Lew wrote:
It should be In the same pack or in a separate one?
From a library standpoint, it makes the most sense to make the go board
library independent of the MC player. I'd recommend keeping things separate.
___
computer-go mailing list
com
Is MC Go a misnomer for programs in this genre not using simple random
playouts and combining with other techniques like pattern matching?
Technically, does the general Monte-Carlo method require random or
pseudo-random sampling?
If so, should we dub a new name for these non-random deep play-out
I think of it as a continuum going from "light" to "heavy." Pure random
playouts are the lightest. But then you add some rules about filling in eyes,
then maybe discourage self-atari,... and the playouts keep getting heavier. I
agree with you that the current crop of MC engines are not n
I am a physics guy, and my thesis project was a large MC simulation.
The clusters that run SlugGo are usually busy doing MC simulations
when not playing Go.
In general MC needs to sample according to the proper distribution
for the problem. For some problems in quantum mechanics and most in
