The "dynamic komi" is perhaps a misnomer; it's by accident that changing komi reflects something which we do want to measure, namely the predicted score.
An algorithm which does not make use of the predicted score would not make use of all available information. On a 19x19 board, it is common for some areas to become settled; whether unconditionally alive, or ( more likely ) alive under the assumption of alternating play. Many moves trade the prospect of territory here versus there. Bad moves give up too much for too little. Good moves exploit bad or "slack" moves, and provide an equitable balance against good play. Terry McIntyre <[email protected]> “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” -- Aesop ________________________________ From: Don Dailey <[email protected]> To: computer-go <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:27:11 AM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps 2009/8/13 Stefan Kaitschick <[email protected]> Modeling the opponents mistakes is indeed an >alternative to introducing komi. >But it would have to be a lot more exact than >simply rolling the dice or skipping a move here and there. >Successful opponent modeling would implement the >overplay school of thought - playing tactically refutable >combinations that are beyond the opponents skill to >punish them. I cannot believe you are being so technically precise about doing this correctly while advocating something on the other hand which is so obviously incorrect. You probably have something here though. I think the play-out policy is a more fruitful area to explore than dynamically changing komi. I would start simple, just trying the simplest approach first then gradually refining it. Random occasional pass moves is certainly easy to implement as a first step. - Don Introducing komi at the 50% win rate level would >implement the honte school of thought - play as if against >yourself. >At a win rate of less than 50% it implements the >"almost honte" school of thought. :-) >I'm not trying to moralize. In love and go anything >is fair. >I'm just saying that while both approaches are >legitimate, adjusting the komi is much easier to do. > >Different subject, suggestion for a komi adjustment >scheme: > >1. Make a regular evaluation(no extra >komi) >2. If the win rate of the best move is within >certain bounds you're done >(Say between 30 and 70 percent.Just a >guess ofcourse.Also, this might shift as the game progresses) >3. If not, make a komi adjustment dependant on how >far out of bounds the win rate is. >(No numerical suggestion here. Please >experiment.) >4. Make a new search with this komi. >5. If the new result is "in bounds" calculate >winrate_nokomi * factor + winrate_komi for each candidate and choose the >highest >one. >(factor around 10 maybe) >6. If not, go back to 3 > > >The idea is to choose a move that doesnt contradict >the long term goal(no komi search) while trying for a short term goal(komi >search) >if no long term goal is available.( Or if every >move satisfies the long term goal in case of taking handicap) > >Stefan > > > >----- Original Message ----- >>From: Don >> Dailey >>To: [email protected] ; computer-go >>Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:02 >> PM >>Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi >> at high handicaps >> >> >>This idea makes much more sense to me than adjusting komi >> does. At least it's an attempt at opponent modeling, which >> is the actual problem that should be addressed. >> Whether it will actually work is something that could be >> tested. >> >>Another similar idea is not to pass but to play some percentage >> of random moves - which probably would work in programs with strong playout >> strategies. Of course this would be meaningless for bots that have >> weak (and already random) playout strategies. >> >>- Don >> >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Tapani Raiko <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>I don't think the komi should be >>> adjusted. >>> >>>Instead: >>> >>>Wouldn't random passing by black during the >>> playouts model black making >>>mistakes much more accurately? The number of >>> random passes should be >>>adjusted such that the playouts are close to >>> 50/50. Adjusting the komi >>>would make black play greedily, while random >>> passing during playouts >>>would make black play safe (rich men don't pick >>> fights). >>> >>>Tapani Raiko >>> >>> >>>Christoph Birk wrote: >>>> >>>> I think you got it >>> the wrong way round. >>>> Without dynamic komi (in high ha >>>> ndicap >>> games) even trillions of simulations >>>> with _not_ find a move that >>> creates a winning line, because the is none, >>>> if the opponet has the >>> same strength as you. >>>> WHITE has to assume that BLACK will make >>> mistakes, otherwise there >>>> would be no handicap. >>>> >>>> >>> Christoph >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>> computer-go mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >>>> >>>> >>>-- >>> Tapani Raiko, <[email protected]>, +358 50 >>> 5225750 >>> http://www.iki.fi/raiko/ >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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/ >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
