Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML

2007-06-23 Thread Yamato
>The cumulative result is only given using the prior knowledge on top >of RAVE, but it could have been done the other way round and give the >same type of results. Each particular improvement is somehow >independent of the others. I think I don't understand that. What do you mean for "the other wa

Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!

2007-06-23 Thread Brian Slesinsky
Maybe another way to put it: In Fischer time, the time allowed to play the game is simply a function of the number of moves in the game. If white moves last, this time is same for both players, otherwise black gets slightly more. At the beginning of the game, the time on the clock is the amount

Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML

2007-06-23 Thread Sylvain Gelly
Hello, 2007/6/23, Yamato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >The cumulative result is only given using the prior knowledge on top >of RAVE, but it could have been done the other way round and give the >same type of results. Each particular improvement is somehow >independent of the others. I think I don't u

Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML

2007-06-23 Thread Yamato
>Using prior knowledge on "normal" uct, and this was the use of prior >knowledge brought about the same improvement. You mean, there is more improvement when using both? >It was gnugo default level, and we thought "default" was 8, but default is >actually 10. I don't see why it is so surprising,

Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML

2007-06-23 Thread Sylvain Gelly
2007/6/23, Yamato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Using prior knowledge on "normal" uct, and this was the use of prior >knowledge brought about the same improvement. You mean, there is more improvement when using both? I mean that there is no need to have AMAF to get improvement by using prior knowled

Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML

2007-06-23 Thread Yamato
>> >Using prior knowledge on "normal" uct, and this was the use of prior >> >knowledge brought about the same improvement. >> >> You mean, there is more improvement when using both? > >I mean that there is no need to have AMAF to get improvement by using prior >knowledge. Sorry, what is AMAF? And

Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML

2007-06-23 Thread Sylvain Gelly
Sorry, what is AMAF? Sorry: All Moves As First :) And I have another question; Don't you use Q_RLGO anymore? If so, would you explain the detail of the Q_MoGo heuristic? Q_RLGO is not used in MoGo's versions which play online. Q_MoGo(s,a) is: - if (self atari(s,a)): 0 - if one pattern, am

Re: [computer-go] MoGo paper at ICML

2007-06-23 Thread Yamato
>> Sorry, what is AMAF? > >Sorry: All Moves As First :) OK, I see. >Q_RLGO is not used in MoGo's versions which play online. >Q_MoGo(s,a) is: >- if (self atari(s,a)): 0 >- if one pattern, among the patterns used in MoGo's simulation policy, >matches for move "a" in position "s", then 1 >- else 0.