Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML
The cumulative result is only given using the prior knowledge on top of RAVE, but it could have been done the other way round and give the same type of results. Each particular improvement is somehow independent of the others. I think I don't understand that. What do you mean for the other way round? All experiments (except the default policy) were played against GnuGo level 10, not level 8. That's surprising news to me... -- Yamato ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
Maybe another way to put it: In Fischer time, the time allowed to play the game is simply a function of the number of moves in the game. If white moves last, this time is same for both players, otherwise black gets slightly more. At the beginning of the game, the time on the clock is the amount of time left for a zero-move game where the player ponders until running out of time. After each move, the time is increased because we now know that the game will be a little longer. The practical upper limit on the amount of time a game will take to play is limited by the maximum length of a game in moves. If you can estimate the number of moves in the game and add it to the clock, that is the true time left in some sense, assuming you don't actually run out of time and end the game early. The way the clock works ensures a minimum amount of time for each move in the end game. You don't really get more time by moving faster than the amount given to you after each move; it just means that you're using less of your total time (determined by the number of moves) so there is more for the end game. - Brian ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML
Using prior knowledge on normal uct, and this was the use of prior knowledge brought about the same improvement. You mean, there is more improvement when using both? It was gnugo default level, and we thought default was 8, but default is actually 10. I don't see why it is so surprising, I guess it does not change really the level of gnugo. Because I have tested my program against GNU Go level 8 to compare the winning rate with MoGo. Now I see surely there is almost no change. -- Yamato ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML
2007/6/23, Yamato [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Using prior knowledge on normal uct, and this was the use of prior knowledge brought about the same improvement. You mean, there is more improvement when using both? I mean that there is no need to have AMAF to get improvement by using prior knowledge. It was gnugo default level, and we thought default was 8, but default is actually 10. I don't see why it is so surprising, I guess it does not change really the level of gnugo. Because I have tested my program against GNU Go level 8 to compare the winning rate with MoGo. Now I see surely there is almost no change. Ok, I understand. Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML
Using prior knowledge on normal uct, and this was the use of prior knowledge brought about the same improvement. You mean, there is more improvement when using both? I mean that there is no need to have AMAF to get improvement by using prior knowledge. Sorry, what is AMAF? And I have another question; Don't you use Q_RLGO anymore? If so, would you explain the detail of the Q_MoGo heuristic? -- Yamato ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML
Sorry, what is AMAF? Sorry: All Moves As First :) OK, I see. Q_RLGO is not used in MoGo's versions which play online. Q_MoGo(s,a) is: - if (self atari(s,a)): 0 - if one pattern, among the patterns used in MoGo's simulation policy, matches for move a in position s, then 1 - else 0.5 Thanks for that. These values were more extreme than my expectation. I thought you use values like 0.4 or 0.6. -- Yamato ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
