For those currently coding this up, I think the most important thing about this playout algorithm is that it is *temporary*. You will almost certainly be?replacing it with something different and better just a little bit down the road.
Creating an MC-UCT bot has a well worn path and its kind of an ontology recapitulates phylogeny deal. First you implement light playouts (the random non-eyefilling moves people are describing), then you implement UCT, then you throw away the light playouts and replace them?with heavy playouts, then you start extreme modifications to UCT... So you probably don't want to worry about hair-splitting tweaks except as an academic exercise. - Dave Hillis -----Original Message----- From: Christoph Birk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org> Sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 3:40 pm Subject: Re: [computer-go] 10k UCT bots On Tue, 13 May 2008, Mark Boon wrote:? >>> If this asymmetry really bothers you, you could very easily fix this by? >>> wrapping the search around. There's no asymmetry in a circle.? >> >> That doesn't fix anything.? >? > Why not? The whole argument is about a bias against points towards the end. > > In a circular list there is no 'end'.? ? No, it was a bias towards moves "behind" illegal moves.? Those moves are twice as likely to be played than other moves. Consider a list with 5 moves:? ? [Move1] [Move2] [Move3] [Move4] [Move5]? ? You create a random number between 1 and 5. If Move2 is illegeal? for example, then you will play? ?Move1 if random#=1? ?Move3 if random#=2 or 3,? ?Move4 =4? ?Move5 =5? ? Move3 is twice as likely to be played. Even if you make a circular? list.? ? Christoph? ? _______________________________________________? computer-go mailing list? [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/
