Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 01:58:36 11/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2002 at 03:52:37, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >Consider backgammon. Despite the element of chance, alpha beta is still >applicable. Also, because if the element of chance, the game has a very high >branching factor. You must account for all possible rolls in addition to all the >possible legal moves with the checkers. > >The best backgammon programs play better than the best humans despite the high >branching factor. Humans do not really try to calculate all the possibilities, >so a program that searches just 3 ply ahead can outplay strong humans. > >The other oddity about backgammon is that the use of neural nets has actually >been effective for evaluation. This contrasts with the results in chess. > >If you are interested in reading more about this you can check out the following >site: http://www.bgsnowie.com/snowie/snowie.dhtml So is it fair to say that backgammon, despite having a high branching factor, is still playable by computers because it is a relatively simple game? For example, in backgammon, you say 3 ply is sufficient. Go programs can get 3 ply, but it's far from sufficient.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.