Matt Gokey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Weston Markham wrote:
>
>> But of course, it's not the size of the win that counts, it is rather
>> the confidence that it really is a win.
>Yes, and my reasoning was that a larger average win implied a higher
>confidence since there is more room for error. That intuition may not
>hold though.
> > In random playouts that
>> continue from a position from a close game, the ones that result in a
>> large victory are generally only ones where the opponent made a severe
>> blunder. (Put another way, the score of the game is affected more by
>> how bad the bad moves are, rather than how good the good ones are, or
>> even how good most of the moves are. Others have commented on this
>> effect in this list, in other contexts.) Since you can't count on
>> that happening in the real game, these simulations have a lower value
>> in the context of ensuring a win.
>That is the first reasonable argument I've heard that makes some sense
>as to why this effect may be true. The opposite of course may be true
>as well and close games may really not be close due to the same blunder
>effect. Perhaps it is just another symptom of the fact that most
>playouts are nonsense games.
We can test this effect by using, for example,
v = 0.5 * (1.0 + tanh (k * score)); // v is in [0...1].
with a little penalty of simulation speed. As k being lager, this
function closes to commonly used threshold function, and vice versa.
I guess the best value of k depends on the sensefulness of the games,
ie., current heuristics for pruning moves are not so effective that
larger k is the best.
- gg
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
