[computer-go] Monte-Carlo is the future of 19x19

[David Fotland]

> 
> It is not what we said. At least it is not what I meant, and 
> I think it is 
> true for the others.

I was reacting to the two statements below.  I didn't realize that this
opinion was not generally shared by the people developing monte carlo
programs.

>> I believe that MC  will be the only way to write a GO program in the 
>> near future leaving the other stuff in the dust

>> I predict that in one year or 
>> two, classical programs will be far behind MC programs on 19x19. Maybe 
>> it will take less than one year.

> 
> I think there is sometimes a misunderstanding of what Monte-Carlo is. 
> Monte-Carlo is a method to approximate an expectation using a 
> finite sample 
> of randomly drawn points. No more, no less.
> It does not talk about "stupidity", especially it does not 
> specify the 
> distribution against which you are computing your 
> expectation. If the distribution is pro players playing 
> against themselves, MC with 3 
> simulations per move and one ply search will crush the best 
> human player by 
> far.

I understand the definition of Monte Carlo.  But when people talk about
Monte Carlo go, they mean programs that evalutate random games, not
professional games.  You are making the same point I made.  What I meant to
say is that using random games and an evaluation that only understands final
scores will not make a strong go program.  There needs to be some knowledge
in the evaluation making the games examined non-random.  There are fights in
19x19 games that need a little knowledge to evaluate.  Random game monte
carlo isn't enough.

David

> 
> Sylvain
> 
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org 
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>