David Fotland wrote: > Well I have no idea how much I gained from this. It might be weaker than > what everyone else is doing, since it seems I didn't implement this as it's > been described recently. My progressive widening only uses Rave values. > It's very simple. Others seem to have much more complex schemes. But I > don't think I implement Rave like others do either.
Hi David, Earlier in the thread you said: "I start with one move, and slowly add moves to the pool of moves to be considered, ... Many Faces is a pretty good heuristic for selecting good moves, so if you are just using RAVE to do move ordering you might need to widen faster." But above you say: "My progressive widening only uses Rave values." ? Yamato was asking why it works at all. My understanding of the progressive widening idea was to use some pattern/expert knowledge information to guide the early MCTS, to stop it wasting lots of playouts on silly moves. And/or to make it choose more solid (better shape) moves when lots of moves have similar winning percentages [1]. Is that how you see it helping too? Darren [1]: Also in this thread, David wrote: "I think it's more that Many Faces values moves that have good long-term consequences that the search can't find, so among moves with similar win rates, it will choose the ones Many Faces prefers." -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/gobet/ (Shodan Go Bet - who will win?) http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (Multilingual open source semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://dcook.org/blogs.html (My blogs and articles) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
