Hi Don, That is an interesting idea, and I don't see anything wrong with it in principle.
However, given how slow Goanna is these days, I think I would probably gain more by spending 1/10 of the time needed for that idea on simple optimization! :) Joel On Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Joel Veness wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > > > Goanna (agog) timed out annoyingly in that game against GNU. > > > > I have since implemented a rule: "if after some number of samples you > > have a winning probability that is very close to 1.0, just make the > > best move right away". There is no need to spend so long thinking in > > these ridiculous endgame positions. I made some other changes so that > > passing is more highly favored in certain situations, so hopefully > > this will be the last time Goanna forfeits a game due to time. > > > My rule is that if the score if over 0.95 or under -0.95 I allocate > some fraction of the time I normally would to that move. I think my > fraction is 1/10. I always play the move with the most samples, but > for this I make sure than the highest scoring move (even with low > samples) fit's this window. > > I think technically these kinds of algorithms should be applied > gradually, so some function could be applied to the score to determine > how soon to stop. The function should not be linear but should be > such that very little reduction is applied unless the score is extremely > high or low. For instance is the score is 80% you might benefit > from a slight reduction, but not much. > > To find the right numbers, you would probably need to analyze a LOT of > data and see how often you lose (and why) when the score is fairly > high. Probably not worth the effort! > > This function should be fitted to your general time control algorithm > too. If you have rules to shorten the search, you should definitely > balance this by being more aggressive about time allocation earlier in > the game. It would probably be very difficult to find a good > balance but the right algorithms should cause you to lose some games and > win some games but to win more than you lose. If your are too > conservative it might seem ok, but that causes you to lose games too, > you just don't notice it as much. > > - Don > > > > > > > > > I guess that is what I get from only testing on CGOS. The small time > > increment CGOS gives makes a big difference with the high latency I > > get due to being based in Sydney, and to the best of my knowledge, KGS > > doesn't do the same. > > > > Joel > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Congratulations to the three winners of yesterday's KGS bot tournament > >> (there was a tie in the Formal division, so three winners). My report > >> is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/35/index.html > >> > >> Nick > >> -- > >> Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
