I took AMAF as the process to consider all the moves regardless when they were played in the sequence (although a slight discount for later in the sequence seems to help a little) whereas RAVE is using an undefined method to favour some nodes over others prior to expanding them. The reason (as far as I understood so far) they get confused is because a popular method to use in RAVE is in fact using AMAF values.
Mark On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Magnus Persson <magnus.pers...@phmp.se> wrote: > Quoting Petr Baudis <pa...@ucw.cz>: > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:37:24PM -0800, Peter Drake wrote: >>> >>> It's easy to get confused -- different researchers use the terms >>> slightly differently. >>> >>> They both gather data on moves other than a move made from the >>> current board configuration. I would say that AMAF stores statistics >>> on every move played from any position, while RAVE only stores info >>> on moves played from descendants of the current position. >>> Consequently, AMAF uses a global table, whereas RAVE data must be >>> stored at every node. >> >> I guess that is a good definition; I assume this difference to arise >> from the fact whether you use tree or flat MC, so for me, AMAF in tree >> always means "from descendants of the current position". Instead, to me >> AMAF is the data collected, while RAVE is the way to apply the data in >> the node urgency computation (which furthermore splits to what I call >> for myself Sylvain Gelly's RAVE vs David Silver's RAVE, of course...). > > This also how I have interpreting AMAF and RAVE after being confused > initially thinking it was just two names for one thing. > >> I think it's because I haven't seen this approach evolve and I'm not too >> familiar with the pre-RAVE AMAF, so perhaps I underestimate how >> revolutionary the "descendants only" idea was. > > AMAF was first used with programs that did not build a tree. Perhaps this is > why Peter Drake makes this interpretation. When I implemented AMAF in > Valkyria it was always self evident that "descendants only" is only the only > good way of making use of it, since search was so deep that the positions > cannot be compared. > > Best > Magnus > _______________________________________________ > 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/
