Bots also fill in their own territory removing very distant threats if
they can afford to do it. Probably saves a loss in one game out 100 or so.
Petri
2013/6/25 Stefan Kaitschick stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de
I have never understood this bot behaviour, because once a position
gets very
On 25/06/2013 10:07, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Bots also fill in their own territory removing very distant threats if
they can afford to do it. Probably saves a loss in one game out 100 or so.
I am not at all surprised by the phenomenon of half-point victories.
One player, who can count
That certainly sounds reasonable.
Though I still don't get why bots would frivolously fritter away the
final cushion.
Even a great bean counter should know that he can't expect his own
count to be perfect.
Then again perhaps todays bots are smarter about this, and the
perplexing behaviour I'm
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Stefan Kaitschick
stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de wrote:
That certainly sounds reasonable.
Though I still don't get why bots would frivolously fritter away the
final cushion.
Even a great bean counter should know that he can't expect his own
count to be
I think that maybe I see the mistake here.
What you (Stefan) seem to be thinking is:
Okay, I make an estimate about a bunch of positions. I assume that I'm not
100% correct. Some give me a huge lead, some give me a tiny lead. I should
bias those that give a huge lead just in case I'm wrong.
I have a thought as to why MCTS bots might prefer to win by smaller margins.
Imagine a situation where a bot has a choice between moves a and b,
where move a would allow a large win and move b keeps the game much closer.
Consider the MCTS tree for move a. It is usually the case that a move
Without looking this over too critically, it seem like a very reasonable
explanation to me.It does seem to happen more often than I would expect
it to from random choices and one explanation if this is true is that
something is happening in the tree to encourage it - something like what
you
Since the bots don't take score into account during the search, wouldn't
the tree be equally bushy for either choice as long as their winning
percentage is equal? The only time the bushiness would be different is when
the chance of winning is different.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Don
Hello Petr, hello all,
make me believe that wins by small margins happen often also
for MC-bots against each other.
The MCTS in Go may win by an 0.5 margin because the human continues
to play mostly calmly, catching up gradually.
Right.
However, an MCTS opponent
definitely does
My original question was meant for non-resigning bots. The observation:
Also a losing bot starts to play lazy towards the end. And the question
is:
To which results do laziness of the winning bot AND laziness
of the losing bot together lead typically?
Ingo.
A losing bot is never lazy.
On 03/06/2013 14:14, Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
My original question was meant for non-resigning bots. The observation:
Also a losing bot starts to play lazy towards the end. And the question
is:
To which results do laziness of the winning bot AND laziness
of the losing bot together lead
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Kaitschick
stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de wrote:
My original question was meant for non-resigning bots. The observation:
Also a losing bot starts to play lazy towards the end. And the question
is:
To which results do laziness of the winning bot
Assuming Chinese rules:
The only way to increase the margin by one point is to create or remove
an odd seki from the board. Winning a ko instead of losing it will
increase the winning margin by two points.
Nick
Hm, ok, 2 points is also important. :-)
Even under chinese rules, a ko can
Especially under Chinese rules, for the score to change a point has to
change from black to white or vice-versa. So the score change is always 2
points. Seki is the exception as it can change the score for a point from
black (or white) to unoccupied, but ko certainly does not.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013
Oops, sry. Stealing a dame does flip the score by 2 points, my bad.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com wrote:
Especially under Chinese rules, for the score to change a point has to
change from black to white or vice-versa. So the score change is always 2
points.
Hi!
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:27:49PM +0200, Ingo Althöfer wrote:
For a long time it was my impression that this phenomenon
was typcial only for bots-vs-humans, but not for
MC-bots vs. MC-bots. But now experiments with other games
make me believe that wins by small margins happen often
Hello,
especially in the early years of Monte-Carlo Go it
was often observed in games between MC(TS)-bots and humans
that bots won by the smallest possible margin, 0.5 points.
We all know that this is not a bug but a feature ;-)
For a long time it was my impression that this phenomenon
was
Hi,
I think some mc bots play small margin games to the end now. Humans like
that. Before one of the bots resigned
Sometimes there is a weight of the margin in the evaluation: this leads
to winning with higher margin than 0.5. This is probably again to be
nice to humans and not playing
too
as far as I remember, Martin presented a few years ago an improvement **in
terms of success rate** for a method with a slight bonus **for 0.5 margin
wins** in Fuego. I don't remember the details...
Olivier
2013/5/31 Woody Folsom woody.fol...@gmail.com
This happens because most MCTS engines
Hi, Ingo.
Indeed it is a puzzle. As you well know (and you have commented on in
the past) my Amazons program, Invader, displays the same behavior --
including during self-play. Since MCTS, under most implementations, is
truly oblivious to the margin of victory the only conclusion one can
20 matches
Mail list logo
