Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9).
> > > But is it shown that "the score is well done" for these properties to > hold in case of RAVE-guided exploration? Since it massively perpetuates > any kind of MC bias... > This only matters for the fact that we don't visit all the tree. For the consistency (the fact that asymptotically we will find the best possible decision), there's no problem. If "score ~ success rate" for n--> infinity (which holds for most usual rules, including rave rules) we also have that, for binary games, we have some good properties on the part of the tree which is visited. Please not that I do not claim that major improvements are possible in computer-go thanks to this. We only observed a very small improvement on success rates, and a good behavior on the situation which appeared during the game against Fan Hui. It might be interesting to know, for people who have similar problems in their bot (a situation in which, even with huge computation time, the good estimate is not found), they solve it with this. > > > We use a stupid method, i.e. the success rate. The pattenrs are bigger > than > > 3x3, with jokers in them. Bandits (Bernstein races, slightly modified) > are > > used > > for distributing the computational effort among the tested patterns. > > Thank you for pointing me to more study material. :-) > > The following paper is great for Bernstein races: http://icml2008.cs.helsinki.fi/papers/523.pdf Please note, however, that we had only very small improvements with races. Maybe our code has had too many tuning steps in the past for being strongly improved by random generation of patterns and bernstein races for validating them. Best regards, Olivier ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9).
> > > >If there are people interested in a ph.D. or a post-doc around Monte-Carlo > >Tree Search, candidates are welcome (Monte-Carlo Tree Search, and not > >necessarily / not only computer-go). > > Excuse me, but what press conference and where to ask? > People interested in a ph.D. or a post doc can contact me. >This was during a press conference at Taipei around a French-Taiwanese > grant > >for joint research. > but I can find no links even with Google. > I'll ask to the taiwanese people if there is something on the web about the press conference. I was only there through a video. I don't know if there is something on the web. This is essentially for the launching of a France/Taiwan collaboration around Monte-Carlo Tree Search, I guess there are not thousards of journalists from tenths of countries interested in it :-) Best regards, Olivier ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9).
Mark Boon: <66913149-592c-426d-b52d-f52f3fa51...@gmail.com>: >On Oct 27, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Hideki Kato wrote: > >> IMHO, Jeff's idea is still very interesting while >> the implementation by the staff in Numenta have been going to not >> right direction. > >That was also my opinion. What I thought was strange is that Numenta's >implementation doesn't have feed-back connections, which is a corner- >stone of the ideas in the book. Oh, I forgot to mention that, sorry. The feedback between layers in Cerebral cortex, which handle time I believe, is essential for the function of Cerebral and thus human, anyway. >> Those playouts are done in Cerebellum using some associative memory, I >> beleive. Then the mechanism, how to communicate with Cerebral, is a >> mistery, assuming some kind of tree search is done in Cerebral. > >It's not so sure to me there's a clear boundary between the activity >of the two. It seems the tree search is done in the Cerebral cortex. >But that may simply be because we're conscious of it. It's unclear >what exactly happens during the unconscious processes. It mays also be >a form of tree search that blends in with the conscious process. >Knowledge about how the brain works is growing, but I believe it's >mostly still a mystery. The way it's being observed currently is >mostly like trying to figure out a computer-program by observing a >piece of computer-memory on the screen. You see bits flashing on and >off but you have to guess what instructed it to do so. Unluckily we have to have some strong assumption to analyze and mimic brain right now... My assumption is based on the experimental fact that the blood activity of Cerebral cortex of the professional players in both Shogi and Go increases a lot when reading forward positions. >> The games in last Meijin-sen in Japan, Iyama vs Cho, may support >> your thought. > >I'm rather out of touch with what happens in tournaments. I've never >heard of Iyama and even Cho could be a different one than I know. What >happened in that match that is relevant to this discussion? The games were very complicated and their thought was so deep and wide that the other professionals in another room in the venue couldn't follow nor understand. Hummm, I'm sorry but it's very difficult to explain my idea as it's rather some intution than logical thought, with non-mother language in addition. Hideki -- g...@nue.ci.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9).
Am I remembering correctly (maybe not) that Mogo communicates between nodes three times per second? That isn't a lot of communication opportunities if each turn lasts a few seconds. Olivier, have you tested parallel Mogo's ability to scale with core count at blitz speeds? I might imagine, for example, playing a series against itself with pondering turned off and one side playing blitz with 100 cores, and the other side playing with 10 cores each given 5 times as much thinking time. As others have said, congratulations... ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
