Jacques Basaldúa wrote: > Hideki Kato wrote: > >>> It's rather odd. I'm checking the log file and then I will check the >>> source code to see if I have some artificial limits in there. > > >> Why odd? It all depends on the bias or policy of simulations. If >> there is a flaw in the policy, the score will converses to the score >> with some error, which will introduce some limit of scalability, >> isn't it? > > That is a very good point. Perhaps it is not the case with FatMan, but > that may surely happen. In this study no program is playing with > uniformly random playouts and perhaps only uniformly random playouts > will scale to perfection. Of course, I can imagine that reaching the > strength of Mogo_13 with uniformly random playouts can require a > number of simulations that is not feasible. So I don't have any idea > about how to improve the study, but this is a serious limitation that > has to be considered: If you find some ceiling, the ceiling may be > attributed to the playout policy, not to UCT. I think there is a performance bug in FatMan causing the lack of scalability. FatMan should play perfectly given enough time but it looks like it stopped.
For instance one problem that would make it stop improving is an arbitrary limit on depth. I do have an arbitrary limit of 30 ply, but I don't think this is a problem at these time-controls. In fact I run a version off-line where I instrument this and it does not exceed 25 ply in any line over one whole game. There are other things that would put a hard limit on how strong it could potentially play, but I haven't found it yet. - Don > > Jacques. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
