[computer-go] Hybrid theory

[Don Dailey]

There is much to think about with Jason's and Michaels ideas.    I favor
a more integrated approach than Michael suggests because I think it
would be very difficult to essentially have 2 different programs playing
the same game (ever play non-consultation doubles in chess or go?   It's
fun but the level of play stinks.  You take turns making a move with
your partner and no consultation is allowed.)

I also favor focusing more on the tree portion, but no doubt the
play-out portion could improve.   I say this because search is more
sensitive to early mistakes and work near the root is cheap compared to
work nearer leaf nodes.    But by all means we should do research on
what it takes in the play-outs.

- Don

 

Jason House wrote:
> I wouldn't stop there.  I'd like a static analyzer to add tactical
> smarts to playouts.  If there's a pre-existing nakade, seki, etc, the
> playouts should get it right.
>
> On Feb 1, 2008 10:34 AM, Michael Williams <michaelwilliams75 at gmail.com
> <mailto:michaelwilliams75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I think we would all agree that UCT+MC is quite good for strategy
>     but not so good with tactics.  I'd like to see this hybrid engine:
>      One that starts with a
>     traditional full-board static analysis (with local tactical
>     searches), looking for urgent moves.  If it finds an urgent move,
>     it makes it.  If the position is
>     relatively quiet, it uses UCT+MC to find a good strategic play.
>     _______________________________________________
>     computer-go mailing list
>     computer-go at computer-go.org <mailto:computer-go at computer-go.org>
>     http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/