Yamato wrote:
Rémi,
May I ask you some more questions?
(1) You define Dj as Dj=Mij*ci+Bij. Is it not Aij but Bij?
What does this mean?
Yes, it is ! Thanks for pointing that mistake out.
(2) You have relatively few shape patterns. How large is each
pattern? 5x5, 7x7, or more?
I use radius 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, according to the distance defined in
Table 1. This looks very much like those used by de Groot and the
Microsoft guys, with some very small differences. With a radius of 10
according to my distance, the most distant point is 5 vertices away from
the center.
I did not make big efforts to learn more patterns, and bigger ones,
because I found that they do not improve the playing strength. It
improves prediction rate a lot, but not playing strength. Crazy Stone is
not significantly stronger with patterns of size 3 to 10 than it was
with patterns of sizes 3 and 4 only.
That may be because it is not efficient to use knowledge in the widening
algorithm that is not available to the random simulations. Also, large
patterns are useful only in the opening, not in the middle game where
most crucial tactics take place.
(3) You say "the nth move is added when 40*1.4^(n-2) simulations
have been run." How did you determine these numbers?
I tried plenty of alternatives and kept what produced the best strength
against GNU Go. Remarkably, I found that the same formula produces good
strength, whatever the size of the board. The alternatives I tried were
linear widening (really does not work), and changing the values of 40
and 1.4. Performance is not very sensitive to those values. I tuned them
when I was using less clever patterns, so it may be that they are not
very optimal.
Thank you very much for your feedback.
Rémi
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
