I tried this yesterday with K=10 and it seemed to make Many Faces weaker
(84.2% +- 2.3 vs 81.6% +-1.7), not 95% confidence, but likely weaker. This
is 19x19 vs gnugo with Many Faces using 8K playouts per move, 1000 games
without and 2000 games with the change. I have the UCT exploration
: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:06 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Progressive widening vs unpruning
I tried this yesterday with K=10 and it seemed to make Many Faces weaker
(84.2% +- 2.3 vs 81.6% +-1.7), not 95% confidence, but likely weaker.
This
is 19x19 vs gnugo with Many
: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Progressive widening vs
unpruning
4) regularized success rate (nbWins +K ) /(nbSims + 2K)
(the original progressive bias is simpler than that)
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you explain a bit more?
Sorry for being unclear, I hope I'll do better below
What's your general approach? My understanding from your previous posts
is
that it's something like:
Your understanding is right.
By the way, all the current strong programs are really very similar...
Perhaps Fuego has something different in 19x19 (no big database of patterns
?). I'm not
On Oct 2, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Olivier Teytaud olivier.teyt...@lri.fr
wrote:
4) regularized success rate (nbWins +K ) /(nbSims + 2K)
(the original progressive bias is simpler than that)
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you explain a bit more?
David Fotland wrote:
Well I have no idea how much I gained from this. It might be weaker than
what everyone else is doing, since it seems I didn't implement this as it's
been described recently. My progressive widening only uses Rave values.
It's very simple. Others seem to have much more
David Fotland wrote:
Well I have no idea how much I gained from this. It might be weaker than
what everyone else is doing, since it seems I didn't implement this as it's
been described recently. My progressive widening only uses Rave values.
It's very simple. Others seem to have much more
To: 'computer-go'
Subject: RE: [computer-go] Progressive widening vs unpruning
I'm trying an experiment. I took the Many Faces code completely out of
the
engine, and put it on 9x9 cgos as mfgo-none-1c. It's faster without Many
Faces, but it's just a basic uct engine with medium playouts. This should
: [computer-go] Progressive widening vs unpruning
David Fotland wrote:
Well I have no idea how much I gained from this. It might be weaker
than
what everyone else is doing, since it seems I didn't implement this as
it's
been described recently. My progressive widening only uses Rave values
What's your general approach? My understanding from your previous posts is
that it's something like:
UCT search using Silver's beta formula and UCB1 with Win-rate and Rave for
choosing a child (I use basic UCT with win-rate and Rave, and the original
MOGO beta formula).
UCT search is biased
I was not at all surprised by this result.
My thinking goes like this. On 9x9 the global situation is everything
that matters and precomputed information is not as important as
searching effectly is. Good 9x9 games are often very sharp fights
where then next move often violates good shapes
For 9x9 games, when I added progressive widening to AntiGo (before I added
RAVE), it was low hanging fruit. I used my old program Antbot9x9 for the move
ranking and got a very nice strength increase for very little effort. Then,
with a bit of tweaking, I got more improvement. RAVE, on the
-go.org
Sent: Thu, Oct 1, 2009 4:50 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Progressive widening vs unpruning
For 9x9 games, when I added progressive widening to AntiGo (before I added
RAVE), it was low hanging fruit. I used my old program Antbot9x9 for the move
ranking and got a very nice strength
Look for the graph I posted a few weeks ago. Most things tried make it
worse. Some make it a little better, and every now and then there is a big
jump.
David
I'm wondering, are these tunings about squeezing single-percent
increases with very narrow confidence bounds, or something that gives
Well I have no idea how much I gained from this. It might be weaker than
what everyone else is doing, since it seems I didn't implement this as it's
been described recently. My progressive widening only uses Rave values.
It's very simple. Others seem to have much more complex schemes. But I
I'm trying an experiment. I took the Many Faces code completely out of the
engine, and put it on 9x9 cgos as mfgo-none-1c. It's faster without Many
Faces, but it's just a basic uct engine with medium playouts. This should
tell us how much benefit I get from the Many Faces knowledge.
David
I start with one move, and slowly add moves to the pool of moves to be
considered, peaking at considering 30 moves.
My current schedule looks like:
visits 0 2 5 9 15 24 38 59
90 100 ... 2142
moves 1 2 3 4 5
I'm not sure whether they meant different things when they were first coined,
but maybe that doesn't matter, and there are two different approaches that
should be distinguished somehow.
When a node has been visited the required number of times:
1) Use patterns, heuristics, ownership maps
dhillism...@netscape.net wrote:
I'm not sure whether they meant different things when they were first coined,
but maybe that doesn't matter, and there are two different approaches that
should be distinguished somehow.
When a node has been visited the required number of times:
1) Use
I guess I'm not really appreciating the difference between node value
prior and progressive bias - adding a fixed small number of wins or
diminishing heuristic value seems very similar to me in practice. Is the
difference noticeable?
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 08:25:56AM -0700, David Fotland wrote:
I guess I'm not really appreciating the difference between node value
prior and progressive bias - adding a fixed small number of wins or
diminishing heuristic value seems very similar to me in practice. Is the
difference noticeable?
It just means that the weight of the prior does not
.
David
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org
[mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Teytaud
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:26 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Progressive widening vs unpruning
I guess I'm not really appreciating
This sounds like progressive widening, but it could still be progressive
unpruning, depending on implementation choices.
I do both. I have a small pool of moves that are active and I also bias the
initial rave values.
My current schedule looks like:
To be sure that I understand, MF
23 matches
Mail list logo
