On 10/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le Lundi 09 Octobre 2006 17:34, Don Dailey a écrit:
> I would like to know the results if you do some tests on this.
Hello,
here are the results comparing the methods of choosing the best move. I have
not yet tested the more complicated solution of giving more time if
necessary.
The benchmark:
- current MoGo with 70000 simulations/move (exactly, no more time even if
necessary).
- gnugo 3.6 all by default (level 8 I think).
- 9x9 with 7.5 komi
Results: (number of win/number of games with MoGo playing black, then with
MoGo playing white, then percentage over all the games).
* Choosing the move with the highest value: 338/425(b),352/425(w) (81.2%/850)
* Choosing the move with the highest (value-(standard
deviation)/sqrt(simulations)): 332/400(b),326/400(w) (82.2%/800)
* Choosing the move with the highest number of simulations: 322/400(b),341/400
(w) (82.9%/800)
Correct me if i'm wrong.
UCT explores move m with a highest
avg_m + c* sqrt ( n / log (n_m) )
so those values are kept almost at the same level.
n is the same for all siblings, so a child with a highest avg_m has
also highest n_m.
BTW have someone tried to remove log from the equation?
Lukasz
So indeed choosing the move with highest number of simulations seem a little
better, whereas it is not statistically very significant (I could try with
more games, but 800 is already quite a lot :-)).
> But it's hard to imagine this making MoGo even stronger :-)
:-)
I have to find a way, because I have a bet with Yizao, that MoGo will beat him
one day in 9x9 without handicap. If I succeed, he pays me a meal in a
restaurant :-)).
Ok, this will not be this time :-/ :-).
> On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 16:53 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Le Lundi 09 Octobre 2006 16:35, Don Dailey a écrit :
> > > On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 10:21 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > The solution given by Don (giving more time until the best move and
> > > > the most
> > > > sampled are the same) seems quite good. But we didn't try (no time).
> > > > Don, did this solution give you significant improvements?
> > >
> > > I never did a hard core test but I'm quite sure it was a significant
> > > improvement. Let me be more specific on what I do:
> >
> > Thank you Don for the details. I
> > have though on a similar method, but I wasn't so motived to do it
> > because I though that it would not be significant. But if you think it
> > would be quite better, I'll try :-).
> > I'll let you know if this is successful.
> >
> > Sylvain
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
