that's with or manhattan distance 2 as well? how about 3 or 4?
s.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com wrote:
After 842 games with 19x19 go the version with the 3-4-5 line rule is
scoring about 55%
I thought it might do better, I think the rule is reasonably
I used distance = 2 first because it tested better on 9x9. Of course
3 might test better on 19x19 and I will try that now.The error bar
makes it clear that 2 is an improvement, so I will stop the test and try
3 next.
- Don
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 12:52 -0500, steve uurtamo wrote:
that's
Don Dailey wrote:
After 842 games with 19x19 go the version with the 3-4-5 line rule is
scoring about 55%
I thought it might do better, I think the rule is reasonably sound - but
55% is pretty respectable for such an easy change and it hardly slows
down the search at all.
Rank Name Elo+
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 20:01 +0200, Berk Ozbozkurt wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
After 842 games with 19x19 go the version with the 3-4-5 line rule is
scoring about 55%
I thought it might do better, I think the rule is reasonably sound - but
55% is pretty respectable for such an easy change
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 12:52 -0500, steve uurtamo wrote:
that's with or manhattan distance 2 as well? how about 3 or 4?
It looks like 3 is no good:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
1 base 2000 296 199 3 67% 18880%
2 d3p 1888 199 296 3 33% 2000
I hope you're joking...
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 30, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 12:52 -0500, steve uurtamo wrote:
that's with or manhattan distance 2 as well? how about 3 or 4?
It looks like 3 is no good:
Rank Name Elo+-
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 14:23 -0500, Jason House wrote:
I hope you're joking...
It lost twice as many as it won, you're not convinced? :-)
Ok, I'll let it run a few hundred more games just in case it somehow
manages to turn things around.
- Don
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 30, 2008, at
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 14:23 -0500, Jason House wrote:
I hope you're joking...
It lost twice as many as it won, you're not convinced? :-)
Ok, I'll let it run a few hundred more games just in case it somehow
manages to turn things around.
I agree
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 12:19 -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
1 base 2000 296 199 3 67% 18880%
2 d3p 1888 199 296 3 33% 20000%
I think I have proven decisively that 3
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Distance 3 could easily play worse - we shall see. Just because a
distance 3 move is sometimes good doesn't mean it will make the program
play better not throwing those out. If it's RARELY best, then the
reduced effort and increased focus on (usually)
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 13:13 -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Distance 3 could easily play worse - we shall see. Just because a
distance 3 move is sometimes good doesn't mean it will make the program
play better not throwing those out. If it's RARELY
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 02:01:29PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
It looks like 3 is no good:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
1 base 2000 296 199 3 67% 18880%
2 d3p 1888 199 296 3 33% 20000%
I think I have proven decisively that 3 doesn't
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 08:01:27PM +0200, Berk Ozbozkurt wrote:
I think such a change may make engine objectively stronger while making
it more vulnerable against humans. Even if the human opponent isn't
aware of the move pruning logic initially, it wouldn't take a lot of
games to figure
-Original Message-
From: Heikki Levanto hei...@lsd.dk
To: dailey@gmail.com; computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 5:22 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 3-4-5 rule
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 02:01:29PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
It looks like 3 is no good:
From: dhillism...@netscape.net dhillism...@netscape.net
I have a similar rule in my program, but I search for neighbors in a square
region because I am interested in Knight's moves and Monkey Jumps.
Here's an interesting scenario: A row of stones high on
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 23:22 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 02:01:29PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
It looks like 3 is no good:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
1 base 2000 296 199 3 67% 18880%
2 d3p 1888 199 296 3 33%
Don Dailey wrote:
You are right, the d3p version rallied to come from behind and staged
an exciting and dramatic comeback:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
1 d3p 2016 77 7521 52% 20000%
2 base 2000 75 7721 48% 20160%
- Don
If
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:25:10AM +0100, Rémi Coulom wrote:
If you'd like to try a simple pruning scheme that improves playing
strength on 19x19, then I'd suggest progressive widening. It only works
in the tree, not in the playouts. You don't need complex patterns for
progressive
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 00:25 +0100, Rémi Coulom wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
You are right, the d3p version rallied to come from behind and staged
an exciting and dramatic comeback:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
1 d3p 2016 77 7521 52% 20000%
2
Don Dailey wrote:
I'm not sure I understand - when you say N playouts, do you mean N
visits of that node? Because once you visit a node, you expand it, no
longer doing playouts from that point.
Yes, I mean N visits. In my view, every playout starts at the root.
For instance if e5 is
20 matches
Mail list logo
