Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >What improvements did you try? The obvious one I know are prioritizing >saving and capturing moves by the size of the string. > >Zen appears quite strong on CGOS. Leela using the above system was >certainly weaker.
I use the static ladder search in playouts. For example, if a move that matched a 3x3 pattern is capturable in ladder, that is not interesting. Of course such a rule makes a program slower, but I believe it is an improvement. >I finally improved my playouts by using Remi's ELO system to learn a set >of "interesting" patterns, and just randomly fiddling with the >probabilities (compressing/expanding) until something improved my >program in self-play with about +25%. Not a very satisfying method or an >exceptional result. There could be some other magic combination that is >even better, or maybe not. I also have implemented Remi's Minorization-Maximization algorithm. But I could not find how to use the result of it to improve the strength. Would you explain the details of the playout policy? Do you use only 3x3 patterns? >What is so frustrating is that the playouts are essentially black magic. > I know of no way to automatically determine what is good and not >besides playing about 500 games between 2 strategies. The results are >very often completely counterintuitive. There is no systematic way to >improve. Yes. In addition, the big problem is that testing policies is very time consuming. I think at least 1000 games that use 3000 or more playouts per move are needed to judge whether a change is good or bad. -- Yamato _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
