I seriously doubt a highly optimized MoGo would be able to stay this close to uniform random in speed.
We certainly could not achieve 0.6 the speed Lukasz can achieve with uniform random. is suffering more from the baggage of this infrastructure than the best
simulation policy version that I would guess is benefitting more from this infrastructure.
Sorry I don't understand :-(. Is the second "more" of the sentence a mistake, or my english too poor? If I remove the second "more", do you mean benefitting for the speed or the accuracy? Sylvain
On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 10:31 -0800, David Doshay wrote: > On 3, Feb 2007, at 2:51 AM, Sylvain Gelly wrote: > > > the speed of the best simulation policy in MoGo is 0.6 * the speed > > of the uniform random one. > > I think that this is very good. You give up less than a factor of 2 > from uniform random and you probably get better than a factor of 2 in > the % of relevant moves. > > This has been the biggest reason we have delayed adding MC to SlugGo: > how do you keep the "randomly" selected moves anywhere near the > relevant moves? With the high branching factor we face in Go, this > seems most important to me. And MoGo has made huge strides in that > direction. > > > > Cheers, > David > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
