To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] rave and patterns
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:06:01PM -0700, David Fotland wrote:
Depends on what you mean by basic UCT. I think I had no UCT priors
then,
just a 1.1 or 1.2 K. The playouts included no self atari, no eye
filling,
no retake ko, and some
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 08:18:37AM -0700, David Fotland wrote:
In the original Mogo paper it's the initial value for the children, rather
than try every child once.
Ah, you mean the First Play Urgency! Thanks, I will try that.
Anyway, I'm happier; after fixing many bugs and improving my
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:49:15AM -0700, David Fotland wrote:
Simple playouts with no eye fills and mogo 3x3 patterns and basic uct beat
Gnugo 40% (at version 120)
..snip..
All win rates are on 9x9 vs gnugo 3.7.20 level 10 with 5000 playouts. After
this I switched to testing 19x19, and
Olivier and David both: a huge thank you for sharing your secrets.
I think David makes clear that his large patterns apply only to the UCT
process, and
then only after a significant number of trials are reached. I gather that
the lifecycle
of a node is something like this in MFGO:
1)
: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org
[mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Brian Sheppard
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:10 AM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: [computer-go] rave and patterns
Olivier and David both: a huge thank you for sharing your secrets
I implemented RAVE first.
Simple playouts with no eye fills and mogo 3x3 patterns and basic uct beat
Gnugo 40% (at version 120)
Adding RAVE boosted the win rate to 57% (about 30 more versions of tuning).
I was trying to duplicate the mogo results before adding my own stuff, to
make sure
Thanks for sharing all this information, David.
It would be easy to turn off rave and run some tests to do
the win rate. Would take about a day to get significant
results. I think RAVE still helps a lot.
I agree that it's easy to turn off rave, but I think that for a fair
comparison
you
