On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 07:45 -0700, Peter Drake wrote:
Orego also uses option B. Because UCT eventually focuses search on the
most promising moves, it probably will spend most of its time on a
single move, effectively doing A without the need for extra parameter
settings.
Is this your
Hello,
I have lurked for a while now on this list, and now that I finally
have a weak monte-carlo/UCT program (goanna) up on CGOS, I decided
that I should say hello. I am going to be spending some time on this
project in the next few months, hopefully learning something about
monte-carlo based
You can:
a) Guess your opponents next response, and assume they will make this
move. Fire off a search from the resultant position. If you guess
correctly, then you save X seconds. But if you only guess correctly p
% of the time, you expect to gain pX seconds of extra thinking time
per move.
b)
On 5/1/07, Joel Veness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My intuition suggests that b) is the better approach, but I know that
a) works much better in computer chess.
Does anyone know why a works much better in computer chess? Does the
benefits of a correct guess (and thinking more deeply than the
Orego also uses option B. Because UCT eventually focuses search on
the most promising moves, it probably will spend most of its time on
a single move, effectively doing A without the need for extra
parameter settings.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On May 1, 2007, at 4:51 AM,
Hi Joel,
I did a lot of testing and for me option A seems a little better. The
problem with just pondering the latest known position is that there is
very little tree under moves the program doesn't think the opponent will
play. It appears to be
good to get the full blown benefit of a correct
smaller for larger boards. The only part of our program that is not
strictly ANSI C++ compliant is is_there_input(), ...
...
return select(1,read,write,except,timeout);
...
If you are interested on a Windows equivalent, I might be able to
provide one.
Hi Alvaro,
I'm interested in a
Don has stated a couple of times that option (A) worked better for
him. I chose option (B) without testing option (A) because I did not
want to have to decide how many seconds to use to guess the opponent
move before starting to think about my next move.
There is no need to spend any extra
Hi Peter,
On 5/2/07, Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Orego also uses option B. Because UCT eventually focuses search on the most
promising moves, it probably will spend most of its time on a single move,
effectively doing A without the need for extra parameter settings.
Yes, this is one
