Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >[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.
I don't agree. If the estimated score by playouts had no error, you were correct. I've applied my formula (in my previous post) when estimated winning probability beyonds 65% and beneth 45% or so and get better results. For example, withou this, my program sometime lost games against weaker programs due to misunderstanding of L&D at corners with nakade. -Hideki >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. It depends on the property of playouts of programs, I guess. That is, if the error of the estimated score decreases in monotonic manner, this idea won't help any. -Hideki -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
