(I'd like to hijack Denis's mail; I've changed the subject) > My tests shows that even with as few as 10 amaf simulation per move, > the win rate against the pure-random strategy is almost 100%.
I'd thought people were saying that AMAF only helped with weak bots. Once the playouts were cleverer, and/or you were doing a lot of them, it didn't help, or even became a liability. But that is just an impression I'd picked up from day to day reading of this list; and at CG2008 people were still talking about AMAF in their papers (*). Can someone with a strong bot confirm or deny that AMAF is still useful? *: But those papers may have been comparing programs with relatively few playouts (i.e. weak programs), due to the excessive CPU cycles needed to statistically-significantly compare programs with more playouts. > I used the following strategy ... though i have no hard-data to give > you, it gave me a fair result. Another thing I've picked up from this list is that when you get that hard, statistically significant data you can frequently be surprised ;-). Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://dcook.org/blogs.html (My blogs and articles) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
