[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I experimented with something similar a while ago, using the >> publicly available mogo and manipulating komi between moves. >> >> If its win probability fell below a certain threshold (and the move >> number wasn't too high), I told it to play on the assumption that it >> would receive a few points more komi (and similarly when the win >> probability became high). >> > > That's certainly a nice solution ! > > It's probably easy to implement, and relatively easy to tune. > > Now, the question is: did it seem stronger to our eyes because it played > more human-like ? > I experimented with this idea extensively a while back and never found an implementation that improved it's playing ability. In fact every version played weaker. I tried versions that dynamically adjusted komi during the course of a game when things looked close to hopeless (or certain) and I came to the eventual conclusion that whenever you didn't use the correct komi, you were in fact decreasing it winning chances. If you tell it that is not winning when it really IS winning by 1/2 point, then there will be games where it plays stupid desperate moves when it doesn't have to.
If it is almost losing and you tell it (by adjusting komi) that it has a good chance, it will tend to lose with a higher score, but you have essentially treated it as a spoiled child, lowering your expectations for it and it is happy to play with the new goal of losing. This whole concept is based on what appears to be a flawed idea, deceive the program into believing something that isn't true in the hopes that it will somehow make it play better. We had this conversation recently but with idea of changing the scoring algorithm, not the komi. I think the same principles apply. I actually think some variation of the idea would work if we understood the issues better. In SOME positions it might very well play objectively better if we lie to it by lowering or raising the komi or manipulating the scoring algorithm, but we have to pick and choose the types of positions where this doesn't lead to weaker play. For instance it's good if it makes it fight better, but in many positions lowering the komi to make it fight in a losing position will cause it to consolidate a losing position. UCT isn't going to fight when it can consolidate. It doesn't care how difficult a position is to play for you, only for it. - Don > As a remark, tests of strength with this kind of strategy could be made > through self-play with handicap games. > > Moreover, if a program plays > better when he is ahead (or conversely behind), it might be an idea to > make the program play initially with a higher (resp. lower) komi. > I seem to remember someone saying that a MC program (I don't remember which > one) was better when he had handicap stones, than against them, because > he used these stones well. I wonder if there was any link with the > estimation of position. > > Jonas > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
