My reasoning is that more deterministic playouts are going to be stronger playouts (assuming they are done right), and so should contain less noise. But
because you don't want to be playing the same playout over and over, you need plenty of randomness near the start of the playout.
Mark Boon wrote:
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/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
