> > > Just to clarify: I was not saying that Mogo's policy consisted > *solely* of looking for patterns around the last move. Merely that > it does not look for patterns around *every* point, which other > playout policies (e.g., CrazyStone, if I understand Remi's papers > correctly) appear to do. The RL paper seems to require that > playout design.
Fine! > > BTW, FillBoard seems to help Pebbles, too. A few percent better > on 9x9 games. No testing on larger boards. YMMV, and like everything > about computer go: all predictions are guaranteed to be wrong, > or your money back. > For us the improvement is essential in 19x19 - I'll find that for the generality of "fillboard" if it helps also for you :-) the loss of diversity due to patterns is really clear in some situations, so the problem solved by fillboard is understandable, so I believe it should work also for you - but, as you say, all predictions in computer-go are almost guaranteed to be wrong :-) Olivier
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
