Re: [computer-go] An [open] question on game tree search theory

[Antti Huima <antti.huima@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Erik van der Werf wrote:

> My idea about the whole thing is simply that some positions are 
> difficult to understand (mostly because of tactical complications) 
> without looking ahead, whereas other positions can be understood quite 
> well without further expansion of the tree. Which positions require 
> deeper search directly depends on the confidence you have in the 
> evaluation for that position, and the probability that it will have 
> any effect on your move selection in the root.
>
> Erik
>
>  
Usually at this point somebody will suggest that evaluations should be 
of the form "score + confidence estimate", i.e. that evaluations should 
consist of two numbers, evaluation score, and some form of evaluation of 
the confidence in the score. A generalization would be to let 
evaluations be probability distributions of evaluation scores.

But in my opinion this just begs the question. In the game of go, maybe 
the canonical measure for evaluation is the end result. Thus, if 
evaluation is guessed (game-theoretic) end result, would "confidence" 
mean some idea of how far the evaluation score is at maximum from the 
game-theoretic end result? How do you quantify or approximate it? Can it 
be quantified? What is "confidence in evaluation"?

In the game of go, pro players maybe win with only a few points margins. 
Doesn't that kind of tight margin always end up being hidden in the 
uncertainities of our evaluation functions during middle game?

--

Antti Huima (Mr.)
Director, Conformiq Tools
mobile: +358 40 528 8667
email: antti.huima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Conformiq Software Ltd.
Stella Terra, Lars Sonckin kaari 16
FIN-02600 Espoo, Finland
tel: +358 10 286 6300
fax: +358 10 286 6309 
http://www.conformiq.com/

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