Re: [computer-go] Chess programs versus go programs

[Heikki Levanto <heikki@xxxxxx>]

On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 01:17:16PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> I thought you  did a wonderful job of  articulating the problem.  This
> is the  thing that kills  a global search  and needs to be  dealt with
> properly to proceed with global searching programs (if that's what we
> want to persue.)

I think some work has been done towards solving this, although I don't
have any clear references. 

It sounds reasonable to assume that one can do the local searches, and
simplify them into straight sequences, or at least into small trees.
While reading, one should be able to mark possible tenukis (ignoring the
local situation and playing elsewhere).

Now, having a pile of such trees, a higher-level search can try to
decide which local battle to fith at each "move" (which can represent a
longer forced sequence).

If all local moves are graded in terms of their size and urgency
(temperature?), then we should have enough data to make meaningful move
ordering and pruning in the higher-level search.


I don't know if anyone does this sort of multi-level search, and what
practical the practical limitations of such an approach. As with any
search, it needs a decent evaluation function, but that is another
problem...


Regards

  Heikki


-- 
Heikki Levanto   "In Murphy We Turst"     heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/