Hello Peter, Hello Don, Hello all, It is true that I have been mainly working to improve the level of MoGo in 19x19. It turned out in my experiments, that improving its level in 9x9 with very little simulations was significant for the level in 19x19, so it is one reason why the limited version of MoGo are running on cgos. So even if the goal was 19x19 improvements, the improvements appeared in all boardsizes.
Our first approach to 19x19 was, as you say Don, to constrain the board (as explained in our paper), and it brought improvements. However, now it is quite the contrary what is happening, each improvement allows to remove constrains on 19x19, and making it play as if it was a 9x9 board (I mean in the parameters). As you may have noticed for example, MoGo is not playing locally anymore on 19x19 (which gives it an ugly style :-)). The number of simulations done in this tournament was from 10k to 50k per move, depending on the context and the move number (simple time management stopping early the thinking if one move is clearly better than the others). For all the details on the improvements, we submitted a paper, and I am writing them in my thesis, so you will all know, just wait for them to be written :-/. I still strongly believe in the future of MC even in 19x19. Bye, Sylvain 2007/3/5, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm pretty sure I read that the MoGo team is shifting their efforts towards 19x19 GO. There are lot's of possibilites for research, but Mogo already does things to constrain the board on 19x19, they are probably just refining this stuff. - Don On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 19:58 -0800, Peter Drake wrote: > Congratulations to MoGo on winning the KGS tournament held earlier > today: > > http://www.gokgs.com/tournEntrants.jsp?sort=s&id=270 > > Even under borderline "blitz" conditions (18 minutes sudden death for > 19x19), MoGo managed to beat conventional programs like GNU Go. > (ManyFaces apparently had some connection/restarting glitch, so its > performance may not be representative.) Of course, MoGo also beat all > the other MC/UCT programs. > > How did MoGo do it? I have three hypotheses: > > 1) MoGo is completing more runs per second. How many is it doing on > the machine used in the tournament. > 2) MoGo is somehow getting more out of the runs it does, using things > like the all-as-first heuristic. > 3) Each of MoGo's runs is "smarter", through the use of heuristics > that bias the random games. > > My money is on #3. In the limit, of course, a very smart program > could predict the outcome with one MC run for each move under > consideration. > > Would the MoGo authors (and anyone else) care to weigh in? > > Peter Drake > http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
