[computer-go] Explanation to MoGo paper wanted.

[Peter Drake]

I believe this claim is true in two senses:

1) If the computation necessary to find better moves is too  
expensive, performing many "dumb" playouts may be a better investment.

2) If the playouts are too deterministic, and the moves are merely  
pretty good, the program may avoid an important move and thus  
misjudge the value of a position.

Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/



On Jul 4, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Yamato wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Sylvain said that good moves in the playouts do not always improve
> the performance of UCT. What do you think about this claim?
>
> --
> Yamato
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20070704/783aa050/attachment.htm