On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:25:40PM +0200, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
> I think someone pointed out a long time ago on this mailing list that
> initializing the prior in terms of Rave simulations was far less efficient
> than initializing the prior in terms of "real" simulations, at least if you
> have
In previous KGS bot tournaments, players including EricaBot and housebot
have been losing won games, through no fault of their own, because they
do not support the game end protocol. As I wrote in my report of the
September tournament:
EricaBot obtained a clearly won game against GnuGoAl. But t
Nick Wedd wrote:
So, once this server build gets installed, which should be before this
Sunday's tournament, here is what ought to happen after both players
pass.
If they agree on all the dead stones, the game is scored accordingly.
If they disagree on any dead stones, the game is resumed.
Look for the graph I posted a few weeks ago. Most things tried make it
worse. Some make it a little better, and every now and then there is a big
jump.
David
> I'm wondering, are these tunings about squeezing single-percent
> increases with very narrow confidence bounds, or something that gives
David Fotland wrote:
>> To be sure that I understand, MF orders the moves using static analysis,
>> and
>> then the ordering is further modified by RAVE observations?
>>
>> So when Many Faces accumulates Schedule(N) trials, it will restrict its
>> attention to the N highest ranked moves according
Well I have no idea how much I gained from this. It might be weaker than
what everyone else is doing, since it seems I didn't implement this as it's
been described recently. My progressive widening only uses Rave values.
It's very simple. Others seem to have much more complex schemes. But I
don
I'm trying an experiment. I took the Many Faces code completely out of the
engine, and put it on 9x9 cgos as mfgo-none-1c. It's faster without Many
Faces, but it's just a basic uct engine with medium playouts. This should
tell us how much benefit I get from the Many Faces knowledge.
David
>
