Nick Apperson wrote:
> There are certain times when this technique is highly useful. ...
> imagine a board with two walls down the middle bordering on each other
I agree. We have to divide the board to create strong programs!
But division is a very complicated subject. In the isolated areas UCT
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 04:00 -0800, Dave Dyer wrote:
> >
> >Of course, everything depends on how you can deal with the boarders - how
> >about some monte-carlo-simulations over the possible boarder-configurations?
>
> My thought is that one thing you could easily get from the rollouts
> is a good
>
>Of course, everything depends on how you can deal with the boarders - how
>about some monte-carlo-simulations over the possible boarder-configurations?
My thought is that one thing you could easily get from the rollouts
is a good estimate of the status of each string of stones currently
on th
Funny thing, I also just thought about this as a friend of mine had an
idea similiar to Dave's.
I guess it might be a good idea to make your zone-partitioning (or
zone-merging, when you start from 1x1-boards) dependant of the current
board configuration. That is, some clever algorithm (probably
I'm working now in a similar idea.
As yours, it will play only in one zone using MC. It will start on 7x7
sub-boards but they will grow once they become full of stones.
I will normalize the sub-board results using its area. It will help me to
compare the different sub-boards.
Once all the sub-b
I believe this to be a good idea, but I couldn't get around some minor
problems. Essentially, because the local searches are coupled to one
another, it ends up exploding as you consider this coupling (scaling to
larger regions). You then have to trade accuracy or have more computing
power than I
> The idea isn't more than lightly toasted (less than half baked), but
> the kernal is turn the full board search into set of searches on
> much smaller boards, using the overlapping strips as boundary
> conditions, then do some unifying final step to pick the move.
how would it handle the followi
I have an idea in the back of my mind that is an extreme version of
this: Divide the board into 361 separate local searches, then use
information from these to guide a global search. The local searches
would be done on the full board, but would only search for strategies
that will capture or def
At 02:59 PM 1/30/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm having difficulty picturing this, so I'll start with the most basic
> questions.
>
>Do you mean Monte Carlo by itself or Monte Carlo combined with tree search
>(e.g. UCT)?
>
The idea isn't more than lightly toasted (less than half baked),
ext) or in some other sense?
- Dave Hillis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org; computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: [computer-go] Re: Scaling monte carlo up to 19x19
Here's an idea for scaling up, which should
Here's an idea for scaling up, which should result in "only" factor
of 10 slower speed. To scale from 9x9 to 19x19, subdivide the
board into four, overlapping 10x10 boards. Run a standard 9x9
monte carlo up to the 90% full stage on each of the four boards,
then run a full board monte on the wh
11 matches
Mail list logo
