We added (MoGo's original) patterns and RAVE at about the same time.
Both helped a great deal, and using both was best of all.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Sep 15, 2009, at 5:28 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
Hi David, Thanks for these information.
Your patterns are not automatically extracted; I don't know to which
extent we would benefit
from patterns like yours in MoGo, or to which extent you would
benefit from automatically
extracted patterns as ours, and to which extent it is nearly
equivalent or redundant.
I don’t think of Many Faces as having a big database of patterns
since there is so much code, and only 1900 general patterns, but I
think in comparison with other strong programs you might consider it
to have a large pattern database.
Sure! it's different in the way you generate it, but it's also a
large pattern database. That's nearly what I meant by writing that
you have a huge part of go expertise (in my mind I separated
automatically extracted patterns and handcrafted rules for biasing
the tree search - sorry for my unclear email).
For us, we had a big improvement in mogo when adding patterns
_after_ RAVE, and I don't know clearly if we should try to remove
rave (and then tuning the formula - this is a tedious work and
that's why I've not tested it yet). If you have added rave _after_
patterns, and also had a great improvement, this might indicate that
both are necessary for optimal performance.
Best regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________
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/
