I ran a quick test of the check in question combined with the decaying
playouts. The one WITH the check won 70% at 2000 playouts over a 200 game
match.
Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 14:08 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
Don,
Don't get me wrong, I understand very well where you're coming from.
It's very handy to have a concise defintion of a minimalist playing
program that can be used to check correctness. The main reason I
thought Michael's idea was worth considering was that it was both
simpler AND played better AND scaled better. But if in order to get
a
meaningful boost in strength you have to maintain some sort of check
whether a move was played by one side before, then I agree it may be
better to leave his improvement out of the reference specification.
The important idea here of course is the decaying weights, not whether
to do the "already played" check. It's clearly simpler not to do the
check. And with decaying weights ignoring the check would have less
impact anyway. So don't get me wrong either, I definitely like the
idea and find it a useful enhancement.
I think we will accumulate a number of useful enhancement to the simple
reference bot and I want to track them on this web site (the web site
that doesn't yet exist :-)
- Don
Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/
