On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Darren Cook <dar...@dcook.org> wrote:
> >> I would like to know what exact experiments with "virtual komi" > >> have been made and why thay failed. ... > > I'm only aware of Don's experiment [1], which he admits he doesn't have > any details for and only remembers: "I did a bunch of experiments and > ALWAYS got a reduced wins when I faked the komi". > > On the other side we have some experiments by Kato-san [2] (where he > reports a 100 ELO improvement over GnuGo, but only from a few tens of > game) and a subjective experiment by Okasaki-san where he "reported Mogo > played clearly stronger" on KGS [3]. > > My own experiments are even more subjective and small-scale, and in the > context of 9x9 endgames, not 19x19 handicap openings. However they were > enough to make me think the technique is viable, but that if you don't > adjust the komi down so the winning rate is near 50% it is wasted effort > (*), and so you need to replay the same move over and over with > different komi until you zero in on that point. > *: I.e. the program still plays weak moves if you've only adjusted komi > to go from 80% to 65%, or from 25% to 35%. > > >> kill all - instead you just overplay a little in order to catch up > >> slowly but steadily. > > > > You just hit the nail on the head. Dynamic komi does not encourage > > a program to overplay the position. Since you are starting from a > > losing position you HAVE to overplay a bit. You have to attack when > > it is futile. > > If the handicap is correct then you don't really need to overplay. As > the stronger player you might guide the game towards more complex > positions to encourage more mistakes, but mainly you are just sitting > around waiting for those inevitable mistakes. > > But, the real point of adjusting komi is it is an easy to understand way > to overcome MCTS's problem when seeing all moves as winning/losing, and > choosing effectively randomly instead of falling back on an opponent > model as a human would do. > > Ingo's suggestion (of two buttons to increment/decrement komi by one > point) was to make it easy for strong humans to test out the idea for us. There is no question that if you provide a button to push, all kinds of positions will appear where this idea works. Providing a button is not nearly the same as providing an actual working algorithm that you can prove is superior. So if you can do this in a verifiable way I'll be interested. - Don > > Darren > > > > [1]: > http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2008-August/015870.html > [2]: > http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2008-February/014283.html > [3]: > http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2008-August/015877.html > _______________________________________________ > 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/
