Yes, computer try the win the game, but right now MCTS have problems by simply using winning rate in 19x19 Go. That’s why we are using “dynamic kom”, which is collected/computed from "average score”, to cure this problem. My point is that using average score is maybe not enough. We might also have to use the information of “location” from the “ownership map” (looks to me a nice word).
Aja From: Don Dailey Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:24 AM To: Aja Huang ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Computer-go] replacing dynamic komi with a scoring function On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Aja Huang <[email protected]> wrote: It’s easy to detect “secure” territory by collecting the information of ownership from the playouts. I have always called this the "ownership map" for lack of a better term. I have heard people refer to is as a "futures map." If Black owns a region of points in 95% of the playouts, for example, we can “safely” say this region is Black’s territory (unless the playouts are seriously biased, which is independent to this problem). Go is a game of territory and the objective of every move is to gain more territory. Computers have a different objective. Computer try to win the game, humans trying to win territory. To cure this problem, besides winning rate we might have to use the information of not only “average score” but also “average score of certain points”. I fear the program would find ways to trade some territory in for other. It does seem like there should be some way to use this information to help. Don Aja From: Stefan Kaitschick Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 4:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Computer-go] replacing dynamic komi with a scoring function By the way, are we sure it is underestimation of the edges and corners ? Rather than overestimation of the centre ? I know those are equivalent for play itself, but the answer suggests different tries for solution. In the first case, we want to make the bot more aware that he will keep its edge territory. In the second, we want to make it understand that inways made be made in its beautiful centre. Jonas I think they overestimate both the corners and the center, but they overestimate the corners less. :-) They will often force from the outside, even when an invasion is relatively simple and the outside forcing stones aren't worth much. I can only call that overestimating corner safety. But at the same time, the center is given even greater priority, because the playouts so often come back with a kill of would be invaders. Crazy Stone seems to be ahead of the other bots in this. My guess is that it's using simulation balancing in the playouts to purposely degrade attacking moves. Ajas' idea of biasing towards secure territory is a typical strong players idea. But what does "secure" mean? Maybe the idea Ingo brought up, to naively give corner and edge territory a higher weight in the early stages of the game, is more promising. It feels like a crutch, but when you have broken leg, a crutch is great. Stefan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
