You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

TheMajor comments on [LINK] Deep Learning Machine Teaches Itself Chess in 72 Hours - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: ESRogs 14 September 2015 07:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (15)

Comments (15)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 15 September 2015 11:47:54PM *  1 point [-]

Or is does the trick lie in the "stronger than a naive implementation of depth-limited search", and is there some reason why we expect depth-limited search to have sophisticated implementations, but do not expect this for probablistic search?

Something like that I think. The paper suggests that optimizations applied to depth-based search techniques in more sophisticated engines are already effectively like an approximation of probability-based search.

Comment author: TheMajor 16 September 2015 09:53:40AM 0 points [-]

Should in this case the probabilistic search not already be comparable in performance with non-naive depth-based search, if most of the sophistication in the latter just serves to approximate the former? Since the probabilistic search seems relatively simple the argument above seems insufficient to explain why probabilistic search is not used more widely, right?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit