Re: computer-go: Re: alternatives to Alpha-Beta Search

[David Fotland <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Amount of work means how much additional search will be needed.
I think of it as being the confidence that the selected move will
work.

David


At 05:42 PM 12/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>In next to last line:  what "...amount of work..." ?
>        Gary
>-------------
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Fotland <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Saturday, November 20, 1999 1:08 AM
>Subject: Re: computer-go: Re: alternatives to Alpha-Beta Search
>
>
>>At 09:46 AM 11/18/99 +0000, P.J.Leonard wrote:
>>> Incidently my experience of watching my PN engine attempt to solve
>>>problems
>>>is that it tends to stay in a local situation for several moves (until
>>>it realizes
>>>that there is another area that is less effort to prove). It is my
>>>strong
>>>belief that the PN scheme is closer to the way us humans think than
>>>alpha-beta.
>>>
>>>  cheers Paul.
>>
>>I agree that some kind of best first search like PN is better than
>>alpha-beta, at least for those go searches of variable depth where
>>there are some simple forced lines and other huge subtrees that
>>go nowhere.  For life and death or string tactics the goal
>>is a simple binary (live or die, capture or escape, etc).  I don't
>>use PN because its estimate of the work to do to prove is just based
>>on the number of moves generated.  In go, you can always generate
>>a few hundred moves if you like :)  I use a heuristic to estimate the
>>amount of work rather than the number of moves generated and it seems to
>>work pretty well.
>>
>>David
>>
>>
>
>