On 1-apr-08, at 17:37, Don Dailey wrote:
That's partly why I'm interested in exploring "on the fly" leaning. Learning outside the context of the position being played may not have much relevance.
That would be most interesting indeed. I'd like to try but keep running into obstacles.
For example: at the moment I have just a handful of patterns. These patterns are important or 'urgent' if you like and they are already enough to overcome the slow-down caused by pattern-matching. At the moment I play a pattern randomly without distinction between them.
If I want to make anything 'learning' then I have to harvest patterns and somehow compute their importance / urgency. There are multiple ways to do that and Remi wrote a paper about one of them. At the moment I use the average length a pattern is on the board. Urgent patterns remain on the board for only a short while. Whether this is better or worse than Remi's way I don't know.
So I have now run the program for a few hundred games, adjusting the urgency of the patterns on a continuing basis. And the program got weaker! Selecting one at random is apparently superior to selecting a pattern based on urgency. This is why I started out with just a few patterns because it's easer to see what's happening. When I look at the urgencies computed they actually look very reasonable. So that's not the problem. When I think about what could cause this, the only thing I can imagine is, again, that play becomes more deterministic.
This is a recurring theme in my tests. Apparently it's something important that still escapes me and which I have to understand to make real progress.
Mark
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
