I use a method inititally from the Mogo team that sorts of randomizes
the position before running the heavy playout. One simply plays
uniformly random *non contact* moves. The effect of this is that it
preserves the shapes of stones on the board, but it prevents the heavy
playouts from play
I have to add that it is possible that a large part of the advantage
from using heavy playouts in valkyria comes from using the same code
to bias the the exploration part of MCTS.
I could probably test it by simply relying completely on AMAF with the
proximity heuristic as the only bias.
> So you say that: "...I'm observing that most of the increase in level
> comes from the selection during exploration and only in small part
> from the selection during simulation.", could you elaborate at all?
> This is very interesting. That almost suggests it might be fruitful
> to use the patt
I'm doing some experiments with the ref-bot I implemented. It's
basically the reference implementation as defined by Don but
including the weighted AMAF formula used by Michael Williams.
I'm trying to answer the following question in general (which leads
to several more specific questions):
You'll probably have to test more than one percentage on each type. It's possible (and likely, I think) that 50% could result in worse play while something
like 20% results in better play. Also, I'd like to re-submit my idea of increasing that number as the playout progresses.
Mark Boon wrot
On 17-nov-08, at 13:36, Michael Williams wrote:
You'll probably have to test more than one percentage on each
type. It's possible (and likely, I think) that 50% could result in
worse play while something like 20% results in better play. Also,
I'd like to re-submit my idea of increasing t
My reasoning is that more deterministic playouts are going to be stronger playouts (assuming they are done right), and so should contain less noise. But
because you don't want to be playing the same playout over and over, you need plenty of randomness near the start of the playout.
Mark Boon w
On 17-nov-08, at 14:42, Michael Williams wrote:
My reasoning is that more deterministic playouts are going to be
stronger playouts (assuming they are done right), and so should
contain less noise. But because you don't want to be playing the
same playout over and over, you need plenty of
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 13:17 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
>
> 1- Capture a stone in atari with a certain probability (like David
> Fotland says he's doing).
> 2- Forbid playing on the 1st or 2nd line unless there's a stone
> within manhatten-distance 2.
> 3- Forbid putting yourself into atari with a
On 17-nov-08, at 15:33, Don Dailey wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 13:17 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
1- Capture a stone in atari with a certain probability (like David
Fotland says he's doing).
2- Forbid playing on the 1st or 2nd line unless there's a stone
within manhatten-distance 2.
3- Forbid put
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 16:04 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
> On another note, as an experiment I have a bot running on CGOS that
> is the ref-bot but instead of using a fixed number of simulations I
> use a fixed amount of time that slowly diminishes towards the end of
> the game. The result is it d
On February 14th, I'm leading a symposium at the AAAS (American
Association for the Advancement of Science) annual meeting in Chicago,
called "Games People Play: Challenges of Applying Mathematics and
Computers to Games". In that symposium I'm speaking on "Games
Computers Can't Play", with
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 16:04 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
>> On another note, as an experiment I have a bot running on CGOS that
>> is the ref-bot but instead of using a fixed number of simulations I
>> use a fixed amount of time th
Weston Markham wrote:
I think that I have seen this sort of thing with Monte Carlo programs,
and I think it is possible to get even less than "almost nothing".
You may be getting overly-precise measurements of the Monte Carlo
values of the moves near the beginning of the game, so that the played
Dear Bob Hearn,
it is not what you have been looking for, but nevertheless
I want to ask you if the title of your talk
"Games Computers Can't Play" is still up-to-date.
I would accept something like
"Games Computers Could not play well before 2003",
but Monte Carlo has changed our world.
Ingo
15 matches
Mail list logo
