On 7/26/07, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of months back I wrote an article on why I believe UCT with
random playouts (as opposed to heavy playouts) will never give a strong
computer go program. I've finally got it finished, edited and published:
What I am calling random playouts for the purposes of this article
give all legal moves equal weight and randomly chooses one of them,
and this process is used for both players all the way to the end of
the game.
I get the impression that this also includes filling single point
eyes. Is
On 7/26/07, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The statement will never give a strong computer go program. is rather
devoid of meaning. You either should define strong ...
OK, I'll add something. By strong I mean dan level.
In that case, the statement seems downright wrong. We know
The statement will never give a strong computer go program. is rather
devoid of meaning. You either should define strong ...
OK, I'll add something. By strong I mean dan level.
I definitely agree that once you've played a few thousand uniformly
random games, there is little to be gained by
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 05:21 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote:
The way to think about a play-out policy is to ask, how good would it
be given an infinite number of simulations? The answer for uniform
random is, not very.
really?
Again it depends on your definition of good.
My main
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 21:43 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
The statement will never give a strong computer go program. is rather
devoid of meaning. You either should define strong ...
OK, I'll add something. By strong I mean dan level.
I definitely agree that once you've played a few
Nice article, I love reading articles like that. I didn't see anything
there I clearly disagreed with although I was expecting to see this.
I think the difference between heavy and light (uniform random)
play-outs is fairly fixed. In other words heavy may be some fixed
number of ELO points
A couple of months back I wrote an article on why I believe UCT with
random playouts (as opposed to heavy playouts) will never give a strong
computer go program. I've finally got it finished, edited and published:
http://dcook.org/compgo/article_the_problem_with_random_playouts.html
I'd be
Quoting Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My conclusion is that random playouts will never produce a very strong
player (within realistic resource limits); I now see why heavy playouts
performed so much better in Don's experiments. I also suspect the
playout style may need to be modified for
Valkyria uses to methods to bias playouts towards better moves.
Thanks for the reply Magnus. You said it will always try to react to the
last move, and only if no reaction needed will it choose a random move.
It sounds like that is something you only want late in the game, so is
that what you
PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 7:25 PM
Subject: [computer-go] The problem with random playouts
I've attached a 9x9 game; a complex game that ended in a 2.5pt win for
white (at 5.5pt komi).
When I run random playouts on the terminal position (at 6.5pt komi, so
actually
I've attached a 9x9 game; a complex game that ended in a 2.5pt win for
white (at 5.5pt komi).
When I run random playouts on the terminal position (at 6.5pt komi, so
actually W+3.5) the results are surprising. With 20 playouts black wins
9. When I increase to 1000 playouts black wins 564.
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
