Orego also uses option B. Because UCT eventually focuses search on
the most promising moves, it probably will spend most of its time on
a single move, effectively doing A without the need for extra
parameter settings.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On May 1, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Chris Fant wrote:
You can:
a) Guess your opponents next response, and assume they will make this
move. Fire off a search from the resultant position. If you guess
correctly, then you save X seconds. But if you only guess correctly p
% of the time, you expect to gain pX seconds of extra thinking time
per move.
b) Think as if you were your opponent. Once your opponent makes a
move, you keep the relevant sub-tree. This means that you will always
get useful information from each ponder, but (assuming that you don't
use the transposition information) you have wasted time searching
moves the opponent didn't choose. I think a crude way of estimating
the amount of time gained by this form of pondering would be to
determine the expected value of:
Don has stated a couple of times that option (A) worked better for
him. I chose option (B) without testing option (A) because I did not
want to have to decide how many seconds to use to guess the opponent
move before starting to think about my next move.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
