Hi Sylvain, On Wed, Feb 6, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Sylvain Gelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you want to come? ;)
Well, I have a nice job, but one can always try to make me an offer I can't refuse ;-) > I just can't do too many things at the same time. Sounds familiar... > > Well, since you say the improvement is marginal on 9x9 then I think we > > are actually in agreement. I also get an improvement, but it's just > > not that much. When I wrote 'spectacular' I meant the reported jump > > from 25% to over 55% winrate against gnugo. > > I am sorry, I was unclear. When I said marginal in 9x9, I was talking > of the differences between the current MoGo (well, at least when I > left it 6 months ago :)) and the algorithm described in the ICML > paper. The change is only on how to balance the two values you get > (UCT and Rave). > Rave in 9x9, as described in the paper, gives a big jump in > performance, and the numbers reported in the paper are accurate: those > are computed with many thousands games against gnugo and I carefully > did the experiments multiple times. > In addition, Hideki for example report the same order of improvements. > I have to point out that it is really easy to make a mistake in the > updates making Rave much less interesting. I am definitely not saying > that you or anyone else made a mistake, but it can just happen, > sometimes :). In the ICML version of UCT without RAVE, you did not use your First Play Urgency, right? I think that using FPU has an effect similar to what others reported with their progressive widening. From what I've seen it looks like plain UCT, without FPU or progressive widening, has more to gain from RAVE. Am I wrong to assume that the strongest version of Mogo before you introduced RAVE used something like FPU or progressive widening? Best, Erik _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
