instead of randomsing a jigo maybe it is an idea to count all outcomes double
- count a win as 2 W - count a loss as 2 L this gives the option to - count a jigo as 1 W and 1 L On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I used to have "solved"-flags in the tree, but the implementation was so > messy and caused bugs in interactions with other messy stuff so I removed it > and was happy. > > I guess introducing some other kind of exploration might be better. Or maybe > value jigo as just a little better than losing rather than as 50% but then > my simple solution currently is not good enough I would have to change > datatypes and rewrite a lot. > > -Magnus > > Quoting René van de Veerdonk <[email protected]>: > >> Magnus, >> >> If you reach a final node, you can mark it as "solved", and never explored >> it again. Shouldn't that solve your symptoms? It appears from your >> description that you do not have such a feature in your tree-search. >> >> René >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:42 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I did not want to spend a lot of time changing Valkyria completely for >>> integer komi so I made a very simple hack to cope with the fact that I am >>> using integers and booleans for all computations of wins/losses in >>> Valkyria. >>> The hack is that every time a jigo occurs in a playout I randomize which >>> player should win which means the change is very minor to the program. >>> Thus >>> I d not to model jigo more than in a statiscal sense. >>> >>> I am doing some very deep searches to see what could be good moves for >>> the >>> most important lines in the opening book. I am using the 7.5 komi book >>> because it is the most developed, but it may be that a 5.5 book is better >>> if >>> black is favored by 7.0 komi. >>> >>> Anyway I just looked at a deep search spending 10hours of search, where >>> old >>> branches of the tree is cut off every time the program runs out of >>> memory. >>> (Which may also be a part of the problem). It turned out that search >>> stuck >>> to a PV and played to the end over and over again with considering other >>> alternatives. Valkyria uses exploration = 0. The game it played over and >>> over was 80 ply deep thanks to a small kofight and all move looks >>> reasonable >>> although sometimes some moves look a little odd. It does search >>> alternatives >>> a little bit in each position but it seems to quickly lock onto something >>> giving 50% for sure. >>> >>> My question: Is this normal? Without Jigo this would not be possible >>> because a deep variation to the absolute end of the game would be a clear >>> loss for one side and then as the score goes down to 0 the search will >>> explore many alternatives. >>> >>> Could it be that playing alternative moves in this search were all too >>> risky so that search converges on a very long but guaranteed risk free >>> jigo? >>> >>> I see this as a problem because if this happens a lot the program seems >>> not >>> really to search all options probably. It could be that my program has a >>> bug >>> or twoo that causes this problem, so therefor I am curious if anyone >>> could >>> reflect on it or have some experience. >>> >>> I believe chess programs uses something call "contempt" to avoid drawing >>> too much (I think espeically against weaker opponents). >>> >>> Best >>> Magnus >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
