I might add that an unexpected benefit of running this study is that I'm now aware of a scalability issue in FatMan.
I probably should have put Lazarus in the study instead - it's a good bit stronger and now I would like to know if it has a similar problem! - Don Don Dailey wrote: > 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/ > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
