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 would have to tune the formula for using patterns. For sure, just removing RAVE will make the code much weaker, but removing Rave + re-tuning the formula without rave is something else. > All win rates are on 9x9 vs gnugo 3.7.20 level 10 with 5000 playouts. > After this I switched to testing 19x19, and stopped tuning for 9x9. > Just a point around that: tuning in 9x9 and 19x19 is very different (at least for us), but also tuning for short time settings and tuning for long time settings is very different. We always check that the improvement remains significant for "real" numbers of simulations. Some of the best improvements in MoGo (in particular the "fill board") were of no use for small numbers of simulations (by the way, I hope you'll have improvements with this as well as us, it would be nice for this rule if it was more general than only efficient in MoGo :-) ). > I think many faces’ patterns help much more on 19x19 than on 9x9. > For us, in MoGo, the database of patterns has a very little effect in 9x9. But we made no effort for designing patterns specifically for 9x9. Best regards, Olivier
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
