On 5/11/07, Brian Slesinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Going along with this, the numbers won't add up (although I don't know > if that is important.) In other words, if you do 10,000 simulations at > the root, all grandchildren will add up to more (due to transpositions.) > If you propogate this up the tree you might come up with many more than > 10,000 simulations at the root. Maybe this is obvious, but it seems like the numbers do add up if you think about it differently? When the program does a simulation that has multiple ancestors, it is effectively working on multiple simulations at once (counting each transposition separately.) The count at each node would then be the number of virtual simulations done. You could count the number of actual simulations separately and see what the ratio is between them at the root to see how effective the tables are.
Consider a node who's had one child extensively evaluated through transpositions. When UCT does come to visit it, the sqrt(sum(child simulations)) will be very high. That will artificially favor exploration of children with less simulations. That will have a continuing negative impact on the exploitation. ... but then once the parent gets updated with the sum(child simulations), UCT may simply stop searching that branch for a long time... Because it likely had a low average win rate, and now looks to be extensively explored. When UCT eventually does come back to it, the problem in the previous paragraph will still apply.
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
