Many observed that, but not everyone. Op 16 apr. 2015 07:38 schreef "David Fotland" <fotl...@smart-games.com>:
> I didn’t notice a difference. Like everyone else, once I had RAVE > implemented and added biases to the tree move selection, I found the UCT > term made the program weaker, so I removed it. > > David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On > Behalf Of > > Igor Polyakov > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 3:37 AM > > To: computer-go@computer-go.org > > Subject: [Computer-go] UCB-1 tuned policy > > > > I implemented UCB1-tuned in my basic UCB-1 go player, but it doesn't seem > > like it makes a difference in self-play. > > > > It seems like it's able to run 5-25% more simulations, which means it's > > probably exploiting deeper (and has less steps until it runs out of room > to > > play legal moves), but I have yet to see any strength improvements on > > 9x9 boards. > > > > As far as I understand, the only thing that's different is the formula. > > Has anyone actually seen any difference between the two algorithms? > > _______________________________________________ > > Computer-go mailing list > > Computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
