Thanks for the comments Magnus.

On 20-nov-08, at 13:00, Magnus Persson wrote:


I'd also like to hear opinions on what would be a good N for a
reference bot. If I set N to 2,000, just like the reference-bots on
CGOS, it plays rather poorly. Much worse than the ref-bot. I haven't
tested it a lot yet, but I think the break-even point against the
MC-AMAF ref bot would be somewhere around N=10,000.

What about doing a MC-AMAF-UCT version. Or perhaps just simply try a MC-AMAF-TS in a best win-visits ratio first manner?


To start off, I wanted to keep things simple.

But to be honest, I hadn't given AMAF (or RAVE?) in combination with tree-search much thought yet. Only yesterday did I look up an article describing RAVE and it's actually not entirely clear to me yet how this would be best implemented. I also did a little searching for past posts to this mailing-list but it did little to clarify things in my mind.

The way I understood the article, after a playout it updates all the nodes at the current level of all the moves played during the playout (if it's a win for the player) with a RAVE value that is used in a similar fashion to the UCT value of a node. Only of the current node does it update the win-visit ratio. Is that correct? This implies creating a lot more nodes than I'm currently doing. I have seen remarks that others postpone expanding a node until a certain number of simulations have been done. I never quite understood the need for that, but maybe this has to do with the fact that AMAF requires a much larger number of node-creations?

The way I had implemented my UCT-search it became very intuitive how to make the MC playout strategy prioritize certain moves in case of heavy (or semi-light) playouts and needed zero modirfications to the actual search algorithm. I'd probably need to completely review things when a RAVE value starts to influence move-priority 'a priori'.

        Mark

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Reply via email to