On 17-nov-08, at 13:36, Michael Williams wrote:
You'll probably have to test more than one percentage on each type. It's possible (and likely, I think) that 50% could result in worse play while something like 20% results in better play. Also, I'd like to re-submit my idea of increasing that number as the playout progresses.
Yes, I may have to try more than one likelyhood. Maybe something like 75%, 50% and 25%.
I have been thinking a bit about your suggestion of making playouts more random early in the game and less random towards the end. Why do you think it would help? Is it just a hunch, or do you have a specific reasoning?
There are some instances I could think of where it might make sense and others where it might be the opposite. But since I don't want to complicate things too much at first I think I'll initially stick to a fixed number.
Given the myriad of possibilities I'm starting to think if it wouldn't be better to use genetic programming to breed a playout strategy. I don't know anything about genetic programming so I have no idea how suitable it is. Somehow it seems to me that if genetic programming would ever be useful to computer-Go it would have to be for something fairly simple and contained like MC playouts. Maybe that's a project for another life though ;-)
Mark _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
