On Jan 17, 2009, at 5:41 PM, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
For the first difference you mention, as far as I remember it makes
a small but significant difference and is one of the main reason I
was talking about "tricky details".
OK, I ran a test and after 1,000 games with 2K semi-light playouts I
Good catch :)Indeed it makes no sense with the "*", sorry...
Sylvain
2009/1/17 Magnus Persson
> I think I found a bug in ChooseMove
>
> Quoting Sylvain Gelly :
>
> coefficient = 1 - rc * (rc + c + rc * c * b)
>>
>
> I think this has to be
>
> coefficient = 1 - rc / (rc + c + rc * c * b)
>
>
I think I found a bug in ChooseMove
Quoting Sylvain Gelly :
coefficient = 1 - rc * (rc + c + rc * c * b)
I think this has to be
coefficient = 1 - rc / (rc + c + rc * c * b)
thus when c is 0 (initially) the coefficient is 0
when c goes towards infinity the coefficent goes 1
which is how
Hi Issac,
You are welcome, and I am happy there is finally a clearer of implementing
RAVE out there. I believe I should have done it much earlier, sorry for
that, but "better late than never", no? :)
Best,
Sylvain
2009/1/17 Isaac Deutsch
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for the slow reply.
>
> Hi
>
> I'd
Hi Mark,
For the first difference you mention, as far as I remember it makes a small
but significant difference and is one of the main reason I was talking about
"tricky details".
For the second difference, I also don't want to "count a move if the
opposite color played on that point first", and, u
A small point: in "PlayoutOutTree", just after "if
(!played.AlreadyPlayed(move)) {", there should have a "played.Play(move)".
I believe it does not change the final result (as the check is also done in
the backup, and the move played in the backup), but I simply forgot that
line (that should make m
Thanks for taking the time Sylvain. I took a quick look to see how
your pseudo-code compared to the reference implementation I made.
There are a few small differences, and I think the place(s) where I
deviated is exactly what confused Daniel Waeber.
The first difference is that when I check
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the slow reply.
Hi
I'd prefer quality over speed anytime. ;)
Your pseudo code is excellent and helped me to understand some of the trickier
things. Thanks again!
I think I will now be able to implement my own version. :)
Regards,
Isaac
--
Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiM
Hi,
Sorry for the slow reply.
After those discussions, I figured out that pseudo code was the
fastest clear and not ambiguous way to describe how to precisely
implement the algorithm. I needed to find some time to write it.
Note that I did not write only the backup phase because to clearly
describ
