On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto <g...@sjeng.org> wrote:
> On 22-05-17 11:27, Erik van der Werf wrote: > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto <g...@sjeng.org > > <mailto:g...@sjeng.org>> wrote: > > > > ... This heavy pruning > > by the policy network OTOH seems to be an issue for me. My program > has > > big tactical holes. > > > > > > Do you do any hard pruning? My engines (Steenvreter,Magog) always had a > > move predictor (a.k.a. policy net), but I never saw the need to do hard > > pruning. Steenvreter uses the predictions to set priors, and it is very > > selective, but with infinite simulations eventually all potentially > > relevant moves will get sampled. > > With infinite simulations everything is easy :-) > > In practice moves with, say, a prior below 0.1% aren't going to get > searched, and I still regularly see positions where they're the winning > move, especially with tactics on the board. > > Enforcing the search to be wider without losing playing strength appears > to be hard. > > Well, I think that's fundamental; you can't be wide and deep at the same time, but at least you can chose an algorithm that (eventually) explores all directions. BTW I'm a bit surprised that you are still able to find 'big tactical holes' with Leela now playing as 8d KGS Best, Erik
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
