Hi Sylvain,
I am a computer go fan in China and I am writing my 9x9 bot(dtlgo in cgos
and dpthougt in kgs). Your and others related paper give me many help.
Currently I use gnugo/libego/CrazyStone-0006 in my test. I also use cgos as
a test method but it's slow for many games. gnugo level 0 is
Hello all,
We just presented our paper describing MoGo's improvements at ICML,
and we thought we would pass on some of the feedback and corrections
we have received.
(http://www.machinelearning.org/proceedings/icml2007/papers/387.pdf)
I have the feeling that the paper is important, but it is
I have the feeling that the paper is important, but it is completly
obfuscated by the strange reinforcement learning notation and jargon. Can
anyone explain it in Go-programming words?
The most important thing in the paper is how to combine RAVE(AMAF)
information with normal UCT. Like this:
I have build just for fun a simple BackGammon engine. [...]
Interesting - did you also try it for chess, or do you think there's no
point in this?
Regards,
Benjamin
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
I have build just for fun a simple BackGammon engine. [...]
Interesting - did you also try it for chess, or do you think there's no
point in this?
The Hydra team has thought about this. Especially the Hydra chess expert GM
Lutz. Some endgames are difficult to understand, but the moves are
The most important thing in the paper is how to combine RAVE(AMAF)
information with normal UCT. Like this:
uct_value = child-GetUctValue();
rave_value = child-GetRaveValue();
beta = sqrt(K / (3 * node-visits + K));
uct_rave = beta * rave_value + (1 - beta) * uct_value;
Thanks for the
The most important thing in the paper is how to combine RAVE(AMAF)
information with normal UCT. Like this:
uct_value = child-GetUctValue();
rave_value = child-GetRaveValue();
beta = sqrt(K / (3 * node-visits + K));
uct_rave = beta * rave_value + (1 - beta) * uct_value;
Thanks for the
We felt also, that even if it works, the improvement
measured in Elos would not be very spectacular. The Elo/Effort ratio is low.
I was simply too lazy (or too professional) to give it a try.
it might be fun (even from a non-FPGA point of view) to try it just
to see where it lies versus a
We felt also, that even if it works, the improvement
measured in Elos would not be very spectacular. The Elo/Effort ratio is
low.
I was simply too lazy (or too professional) to give it a try.
it might be fun (even from a non-FPGA point of view) to try it just
to see where it lies versus a
I actually have a working chess program at a fairly primitive stage
which would be appropriate for testing UCT on chess.
My intuition (which is of course subject to great error) tells me that
it won't pay off. However, I'm still quite curious about this and will
probably give it a try at some
A long time ago ago I spent a few hours on writing a simple chess
program doing
UCT-search. I got to the point where it actually played better than random but
not very much.
It sort of reminded me of the strength of plain MC in 19x19 Go. The problem is
that many games become very long in chess
On 7/3/07, chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We just presented our paper describing MoGo's improvements at ICML,
and we thought we would pass on some of the feedback and corrections
we have received.
(http://www.machinelearning.org/proceedings/icml2007/papers/387.pdf)
They are
It's because Go is not only game in the world and certainly not only
reinforcement learning problem. They are using a widely accepted
terminology.
But a very inappropriate one. I have read Suttons book and all the
things I
know (e.g. TD-Gammon) are completly obfuscated.
Really? I think
2. We want other communities to find out about UCT, and start using it many
different domains. It is not just a Go-programming algorithm!
Yes. I think the idea has many potential fields of application. In the samewhat
dated book R.Epstein: The of Gambling and Statistical Logic the simple
Isn't there room for both? Shouldn't we present our work within our own
community, but also make efforts to share our ideas with others?
Yes, I do this by writing popular articles about computer-chess and games
programming.
The point of concern is: One is only considered important if one
the language of mathematics is perhaps the most universal language for
computer scientists. pseudocode comes in somewhere after that, and well-known
algorithms probably somewhere inbetween. game programming is an application
of computer science, and the language of game programming isn't
the language of mathematics is perhaps the most universal language for
computer scientists. pseudocode comes in somewhere after that, and well-known
algorithms probably somewhere inbetween. game programming is an application
of computer science, and the language of game programming isn't
It's because Go is not only game in the world and certainly not only
reinforcement learning problem. They are using a widely accepted
terminology.
But a very inappropriate one. I have read Suttons book and all the
things I
know (e.g. TD-Gammon) are completly obfuscated. Its maybe suitable
18 matches
Mail list logo
