Dave wrote:
We have seen a similar effect many times in MoGo. Often we try
something that seems like it should improve the quality of the
simulation player, but it makes the overall performance worse. It is
frustrating and surprising! Has anyone else encountered this?
I'm not surprised. The
This discussion reminds me of a naive theory that I sometimes wonder about:
Since the players in the playouts are so weak, it seems like the
improving the ability to defend a strong position from a
not-very-clever move (and not lose it via a blunder) should be more
important than improving the
How is this a ko threat? Lazarus threatens a chain of 4 or 5 stones
with a self-atari move. If the opponent captures, where is the ko?
If the opponent doesn't capture, where is the ko?
sorry, this is just terminology on my part -- a 'ko threat' is any threat
that can be used during a ko,
There is one other issue I have seen that is similar. Sometimes
Lazarus will play a move that doesn't hurt nor help it's position.
It's not a wasted move because the opponent must respond or else lose.
this sounds a good bit like a ko threat, which is tricky to distinguish
from a good play.
s.
The attack is easily
refuted with a capture, and when that happens no time was lost. But
the opponent must capture immediately or the threat Lazarus made
actually works.
this, in fact, is a ko threat. if you play it *outside* of a ko, then it's a
wasted ko threat. no big loss if there are
steve uurtamo said:
There is one other issue I have seen that is similar. Sometimes
Lazarus will play a move that doesn't hurt nor help it's position. It's
not a wasted move because the opponent must respond or else lose.
this sounds a good bit like a ko threat, which is tricky to
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 16:52 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote:
The attack is easily
refuted with a capture, and when that happens no time was lost. But
the opponent must capture immediately or the threat Lazarus made
actually works.
this, in fact, is a ko threat. if you play it *outside* of
I think Steve meant that the move /should have been used as/ a ko
threat.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 16:52 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote:
The attack is easily
refuted with a capture, and when that happens no
In Go things are insofar worse as there is only one standard sparring
partner, Gnu-Go. This creates severe inbreeding effects. In chess there was
a similar problem. There were more strong opponents around, but over the
years they become very similar. Suddenly there was a new programm, Rybka,
In other words UCT works well when evaluation/playouts is/are
strong. I
believe
there are still improvements possible to the UCT algorithm as
shown by the
recent papers by Mogo and Crazystone authors, but what really will
make a
difference is in the quality in the playouts.
Sylvain said
Seems like it should be up to the person in the other environment
to adapt your
successful algorithm (and notation/terminology) to their environment.
But how do the other people in other environments find out about the
algorithm? And find out that it is something they could use in their
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 10:50 -0600, David Silver wrote:
We tried the whole spectrum from completely random to completely
deterministic playouts, but we never came close to the performance of
the dumb playouts!
I don't understand - I though Mogo wasn't using dumb play-outs?
We have seen a
One of my favorite observations about Go is that expert play tends
to be on the edge of catastrophy.
By playing better moves on the average, you become more vulnerable
to the occasional misstep.
If a program is not very good, random better or worse moves do not have
much effect. If the
One of my favorite observations about Go is that expert play tends
to be on the edge of catastrophy.
By playing better moves on the average, you become more vulnerable
to the occasional misstep.
If a program is not very good, random better or worse moves do not have
much effect. If the
We have encountered this consistently in our non-MC/UCT program.
Things that fix an obvious problem lead to unintended consequences
that sometimes take weeks to tease apart. So far we have been able to
understand how this comes about in each situation, but still have
little ability to
There is one other issue I have seen that is similar. Sometimes
Lazarus will play a move that doesn't hurt nor help it's position.
It's not a wasted move because the opponent must respond or else lose.
An example is a simple self-atari which itself is a direct threat. The
opponent is forced to
Thanks, the dictionary is really great.
Chrilly
- Original Message -
From: David Silver
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:29 PM
Subject: [computer-go] Re: Explanation to MoGo paper wanted. (BackGammonCode)
It's because Go is not only game
I wonder whether the use of games as a metaphor would make general
machine learning concepts more easily understood by non-specialists?
That is, if you took a machine learning paper and rewrote it in terms
of games, would that make it easier or harder to understand for people
unfamiliar with both
It's because Go is not only game in the world and certainly not only
reinforcement learning problem. They are using a widely accepted
terminology.
But a very inappropriate one. I have read Suttons book and all the
things I
know (e.g. TD-Gammon) are completly obfuscated.
Really? I think
2. We want other communities to find out about UCT, and start using it many
different domains. It is not just a Go-programming algorithm!
Yes. I think the idea has many potential fields of application. In the samewhat
dated book R.Epstein: The of Gambling and Statistical Logic the simple
Isn't there room for both? Shouldn't we present our work within our own
community, but also make efforts to share our ideas with others?
Yes, I do this by writing popular articles about computer-chess and games
programming.
The point of concern is: One is only considered important if one
the language of mathematics is perhaps the most universal language for
computer scientists. pseudocode comes in somewhere after that, and well-known
algorithms probably somewhere inbetween. game programming is an application
of computer science, and the language of game programming isn't
the language of mathematics is perhaps the most universal language for
computer scientists. pseudocode comes in somewhere after that, and well-known
algorithms probably somewhere inbetween. game programming is an application
of computer science, and the language of game programming isn't
It's because Go is not only game in the world and certainly not only
reinforcement learning problem. They are using a widely accepted
terminology.
But a very inappropriate one. I have read Suttons book and all the
things I
know (e.g. TD-Gammon) are completly obfuscated. Its maybe suitable
24 matches
Mail list logo
