[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: computer-go: A problem with understanding lookahead

To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: computer-go: A problem with understanding lookahead
From: Nick Wedd <Nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:05:06 +0000
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101181009180.20621-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3.0.32.20010118014951.00b0ccd0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><Pine.LNX.4.30.0101181009180.20621-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thomas Crawford Watson <tcwatson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>No offense, but this is stupid.  It is completely clear that
>n-ply search with random evaluation always plays a uniform
>random move.

It is certainly not clear to me.

I would expect it to prefer lines which give the opponent fewer choices
of move, and itself more choices.

Nick
-- 
Nick Wedd    nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Follow-Ups:
- Re: computer-go: A problem with understanding lookahead
  - From: David Mechner

References:
- Re: computer-go: A problem with understanding lookahead
  - From: Vincent Diepeveen
- Re: computer-go: A problem with understanding lookahead
  - From: Thomas Crawford Watson

Prev by Date: Re: computer-go: A problem with understanding lookahead
Next by Date: Re: computer-go: A problem with understanding lookahead
Previous by thread: Re: computer-go: A problem with understanding lookahead
Next by thread: Re: computer-go: A problem with understanding lookahead
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread