Hi David, Thanks for these information.
Your patterns are not automatically extracted; I don't know to which extent
we would benefit
from patterns like yours in MoGo, or to which extent you would benefit from
automatically
extracted patterns as ours, and to which extent it is nearly equivalent or
We added (MoGo's original) patterns and RAVE at about the same time.
Both helped a great deal, and using both was best of all.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Sep 15, 2009, at 5:28 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
Hi David, Thanks for these information.
Your patterns are not automa
I implemented RAVE first.
Simple playouts with no eye fills and mogo 3x3 patterns and basic uct beat
Gnugo 40% (at version 120)
Adding RAVE boosted the win rate to 57% (about 30 more versions of tuning).
I was trying to duplicate the mogo results before adding my own stuff, to
make sure the
Thanks for sharing all this information, David.
> It would be easy to turn off rave and run some tests to do
> the win rate. Would take about a day to get significant
> results. I think RAVE still helps a lot.
I agree that it's easy to turn off rave, but I think that for a fair
comparison
you
> We added (MoGo's original) patterns and RAVE at about the same time. Both
> helped a great deal, and using both was best of all.
>
You mean mogo's 3x3 patterns I guess; the discussion here is about pattern
databases for biasing the research in the tree (patterns with size until
19x19) and how th
