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/
