>I have the feeling that the paper is important, but it is completly >obfuscated by the strange reinforcement learning notation and jargon. Can >anyone explain it in Go-programming words?
The most important thing in the paper is how to combine RAVE(AMAF) information with normal UCT. Like this: uct_value = child->GetUctValue(); rave_value = child->GetRaveValue(); beta = sqrt(K / (3 * node->visits + K)); uct_rave = beta * rave_value + (1 - beta) * uct_value; You do not always have to understand RLGO - they don't use it in the online version of MoGo. >It was pointed out by Donald Knuth in his paper on Alpha-Beta, that the - >simple - algorithm was not understood for a long time, because of the >inappropriate mathematical notation. For recursive functions, (pseudo-)code >is much better suited than the mathematical notation. Actually its >pseudo-mathematic notation. >Why is this inappropriate notation still used? I agree that the pseudo-code is easy to understand. -- Yamato _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
