[computer-go] Explanation to MoGo paper wanted.

[Magnus Persson]

Quoting Jacques Basaldúa <jacques at dybot.com>:

> chrilly wrote:
>
>> The results in Go are spectacular, because the quality of 
>> conventional evaluations is low.
>
> There is more than that. As the proverb states "Go is a territorial 
> game". You win a game of go by wining points
> and at the end one point is one point no matter where it is. This 
> accumulative nature of go is in the base of why
> UCT works so well having some known inappropriate features
> (E.g. ladders and many tactics, where the best move is found very 
> late, if at all.) I don't think this applies to
> chess, but I have never tried.

Weak tactics is a problem of the playouts in my opinion. UCT as a 
general search
method has thus little to do with ladders and other game specific details. If
there are no tactical mistakes in the playouts the problems disappear. Also
tactics has a large impact on where territory appears in the playout, since
much of the noise in the playouts come from tactical mistakes near the end of
the game.

In other words UCT works well when evaluation/playouts is/are strong. I 
believe
there are still improvements possible to the UCT algorithm as shown by the
recent papers by Mogo and Crazystone authors, but what really will make a
difference is in the quality in the playouts.

-Magnus