imulations of the node is "< threshold" rather than ending
on a unseen node.
Sylvain
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dmitry Kamenetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, computer-go
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:54:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [computer
?
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dmitry Kamenetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, computer-go
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:54:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [computer-go] UCT vs MC
>
> On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:56 +0300, Dmitry Kamenetsky wrote:
> > Thank you for
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:56 +0300, Dmitry Kamenetsky wrote:
> Thank you for your answer. However, I am even more confused now. I
> understand that "-" is for negamax, but I don't understand why it
> became "1-". I am trying to implement your algorithm and I just want
> to know what lines 7, 16 and
in
-Original Message-
From: "Sylvain Gelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dmitry Kamenetsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:03:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [computer-go] UCT vs MC
>
> Hello Dmitry,
>
>
> >> Your code says that
From: "Sylvain Gelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dmitry Kamenetsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:03:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [computer-go] UCT vs MC
>
> Hello Dmitry,
>
>
> >> Your code says that the value is backed up by sum
Hello Dmitry,
Your code says that the value is backed up by sum and negation (line 26,
>> value := -value). But I don't see any negative values in your sample
tree,
>> or values greater than one. How do you actually back up values to the
>> root?
>Sorry, it is value := 1-value. Thank you for
Hi Sylvain,
>> Your code says that the value is backed up by sum and negation (line 26,
>> value := -value). But I don't see any negative values in your sample tree,
>> or values greater than one. How do you actually back up values to the
>> root?
>Sorry, it is value := 1-value. Thank you for po
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm curious about the full width depth and the principal variation depth to
compare UCT wilth alpha-beta.
The comparison is not so easy to do I think, because using MC as an
evaluation
function for alpha beta, you have to do several simulations for one
evaluation and
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:10 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'm curious about the full width depth and the principal variation
> depth to
> > compare UCT wilth alpha-beta.
> The comparison is not so easy to do I think, because using MC as an
> evaluation
> function for alpha beta, you have
h")? The right should be "the
number which makes the stronger player". I did not made such experiments.
Perhaps someone did?
Sylvain
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTE
I seem to remember someone on this group a couple of years ago or so
saying that there won't be a 1 Dan 9x9 player anytime soon. I don't
remember the exact quote or who said it. I'm looking through the
archives but I can't find it. I would not name the person even when
I do, but it gives me
Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 3:56 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] UCT vs MC
>
>
> Hello and happy new year!
>
>
> > I have some questions about your paper...
> Whouah that's a lot of questions :). I
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:50 AM
> > To: computer-go
> > Subject: Re: [computer-go] UCT vs MC
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > > It looks to me that the strength of
Hello,
I´m playing with MC-UCT and patterns in MC "random" simulation.
On Sunday 31 December 2006 23:02, David Fotland wrote:
> I see. It seems that most of Mogo's strength is due to using pattern
> sequences in the Monte Carlo random games.
My MC engine got a lot better when I modified the "ra
On 1/1/07, David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In your paper you show win rates against GnuGo of about 50%, depending on
the parameters. The current Mogo beats GnuGo over 90%. What
changed? Are
you doing more simulations, or do you have more go knowledge in your
patterns? Does Mogo have
L PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:50 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] UCT vs MC
>
>
> Hello,
>
> > It looks to me that the strength of the top programs, like Mogo, is
> > mostly due to the new UCT search algorithm.
>
> It
Hello,
> It looks to me that the strength of the top programs, like Mogo, is mostly
> due to the new UCT search algorithm.
It depends what you compare to.
If you compare UCT against no tree, this makes a lot of difference.
If you compare UCT to former Remi Coulom's tree search algorithm, Remi ca
What is the strongest program on CGOS that does pure monte-carlo without
UCT? By pure monte carlo, I mean a single ply search with monte carlo as the
evaluation, and scaling by doing more simulations per evaluation?
It looks to me that the strength of the top programs, like Mogo, is mostly
due to
18 matches
Mail list logo
