In my experience adding a captured stoned limit per
game biases the results. strongly.
The limit was a constant number. Perhaps it could be
good to define it as a function of current move
number.
In UCT-Suzie I stop also when one side has a big
material advantage
(captured much more
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 06:47:58AM -0300, Eduardo Sabbatella wrote:
In my experience adding a captured stoned limit per
game biases the results. strongly.
In which direction?
The limit was a constant number. Perhaps it could be
good to define it as a function of current move
number.
I
game biases the results. strongly.
In which direction?
I was comparing my engine with GNUGO 3.6 level 1.
It looses more frequently.
I don't make any tests for the first 20 moves.
Thereafter, I resign if
- I have no stones left on board
- I have less than half the number of stones my
CGOS is back up, both 9x9 and 19x19.
- Don
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
-Original Message-
From: Eduardo Sabbatella [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wed, 23 May 2007 8:20 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] KO in Hashtable-UCT?
game biases the results. strongly.
In which direction?
I was comparing my engine with GNUGO 3.6
Favorite line:
If the index equals the win rate of the move, the algorithm quickly
focuses on the most promising path.
On 5/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just received the June issue of Scientific American and
found a 1.5 page article on Computer Go and UCT.
I've
In previous versions of Orego, I have added one node per playout. I
just changed that to add a child to a node only if that node has at
least A runs, where A is the area of the board (e.g., 81). This seems
to make the program stronger, if only because it allows me to get in
more runs.
Heikki Levanto wrote:
I don't make any tests for the first 20 moves. Thereafter, I
resign if
- I have no stones left on board
- I have less than half the number of stones my opponent has
I also pass if my opponent has no stones left on board.
Eduardo Sabbatella wrote:
My cut logic was:
What is the most extreme example of being behind (either by X stones, or
by some percentage, such as Heikki's 50% above) where the losing player
can make a comeback and win the game (assume perfect play by both
players from that point)?
I realized this is quite trivial: a board position where
I just received the June issue of Scientific American and
found a 1.5 page article on Computer Go and UCT.
Just so I'm ready next time a computer go question comes up at a pub
quiz, it says the Monte Carlo method was First incorporated into Go
Programs in the 1970s. I'd have guessed 30 years
10 matches
Mail list logo