It's a good start.  I haven't tested against gnugo on 9x9 for a long time so
I tried a short test his afternoon.

Many Faces, 1000 playouts per move, vs Gnugo 3.7.10, level 10.
Many Faces won 75.9% of 3669 games (+-1.4% confidence level).

It took me about 300 versions tested to get from 10% wins against gnugo in 3
minute games to 90% wins against gnugo with 5K playouts, before I switched
to 19x19.  Many things you try won't make your program better, but if you
keep trying it will get much better.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:computer-go-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jacques Basaldúa
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:57 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Computer-go] Oakfoam and ELO Features
> 
> Hi Francois, Welcome
> 
> 
>  > For reference I need about 100k playouts with
>  > RAVE to get 50% winrate against GnuGo 3.8 L10.
> 
> Yes that's more or less expected. At least before the
> "big" improvements (yet to come ;-)
> 
> In my case I do a lot of testing at 4x10000 because
> the games are around 15 seconds long and I get fast
> Elo confidence intervals. At that rate 40 K plyo/move
> I get about 40-42% of wins against gnugo. This is more
> or less consistent with a debugged barebones without
> particular smarts (but with RAVE, without progressive
> widening). I guess 40% at 40000 scales to 50% near
> 100K but the exact point where I reach 50% has not
> been studied as I expect it to be much lower in the
> near future. (Optimistic)
> 
>  > The next step is obviously to apply these to the
>  > playouts. I am currently testing my program with
>  > the ELO features in the playouts, but unfortunately
>  > the preliminary results don't look good.
> 
> That's exactly my experience! Although you do get
> improvement with extend from atari/capture/distance to
> prev heuristic.
> 
> The Mogo and CrazyStone papers report improvement
> "all features included" which is true because the
> other ideas produce improvement, but they don't
> give results for the patterns in isolation.
> 
> I got a lot of improvement from Rémi's Bradley-Terry
> ideas in move prediction (although with some
> overlearning which I didn't care much about as
> predicting moves is not my interest.) But neither
> the naif values (times played/times seen) nor the
> improved Bradley-Terry values are better in playouts
> than uniform random. They are 158 CI(114..202) Elo
> points worse!
> 
> That is good and bad news. Why should uniform random
> be the best?. Obviously it is not. But what humans
> play lacks all the information about what they don't
> play because it is obvious to them, but it is not
> obvious to a "silly" playout policy.
> 
> How to find good values for the patterns? (What I have
> tried.)
> 
> a. Use small patterns (3x3) with all non-ill-formed
> patterns in the database. (Other databases have a value
> for "unknown" this one shouldn't.)
> 
> b. Classify patterns. I have done that in 40 classes.
> This way you reduce the amount of degrees of liberty.
> So your vector of gamma values is in R^40
> 
> c. Then what? I really don't know. I have a "sort of
> genetic algorithm". I like the idea that anything
> changes at random, because the gammas are not
> independent and this way the expected value of the
> correlation is zero even under stochastic dependence.
> Then I select the "best winners" and move my center of
> gravity one little step in one or two classes of patterns
> repeat the entire process. Then test to see if there
> was improvement. A long process. I only won a little
> in the first iterations. After tat fake improvement
> that wasn't verified against uniform random.
> 
> In all about 100 Elo points, less improvement than
> the "humans patterns" do wrong. I guess best playouts
> are a research area where there is room for improvement.
> 
> 
> Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Reply via email to