For exploration term ==0, maybe we can regard draw as loss for a certain
amount of simulations, such as n*legal_moves_of_this_node. After that we
start to regard draw as draw. This can force the search to explore non-draw
moves before closing its eyes.
Aja
-----原始郵件-----
From: Brian Sheppard
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 2:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] 7.0 Komi and weird deep search result
That's all fine, but UCT with exploration term == 0 does not asymptotically
converge in a ternary-valued space.
The problem is that the search is closing its eyes to the possibility of
winning. Both sides are happy to do that because neither side is exploring.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Willemien
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] 7.0 Komi and weird deep search result
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:28 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoting Michael Williams <[email protected]>:
I wonder what would happen if you counted jigo as a loss for both
players...
Interesting, it would then avoid all lines that are likely to lead to a
draw. The problem is that it then not be able to see any difference
between
a jigo and a loss which may be a problem in a position which is a clear
jigo. What happens deeper in the tree does not matter, if there is only a
few jigo candidate moves and many losing moves, the program will often
pick
a losing move.
So I think jigo must be evaluated at least better than losing perhaps
something like 25% or so. But then I need to program some more because it
would change how I update the tree, and that part of the program is quite
messy with all the AMAF updating and so on.
The question is: should jigo be counted balanced for both players or
should
one perhaps bias the randomized winner for jigo playout. For example if
the
program is winning 60% at root then jigo would count as win in only 40% of
the cases for the color of program in the playouts. This would perhaps
drive
the program more towards winning lines when it wins and towards jigo when
it
loses.
If you follow my idea :
- 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
the winrate with jigo will go to 50%.
_______________________________________________
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
