Quoting Petr Baudis <pa...@ucw.cz>:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:37:24PM -0800, Peter Drake wrote:
It's easy to get confused -- different researchers use the terms
slightly differently.
They both gather data on moves other than a move made from the
current board configuration. I would say that AMAF stores statistics
on every move played from any position, while RAVE only stores info
on moves played from descendants of the current position.
Consequently, AMAF uses a global table, whereas RAVE data must be
stored at every node.
I guess that is a good definition; I assume this difference to arise
from the fact whether you use tree or flat MC, so for me, AMAF in tree
always means "from descendants of the current position". Instead, to me
AMAF is the data collected, while RAVE is the way to apply the data in
the node urgency computation (which furthermore splits to what I call
for myself Sylvain Gelly's RAVE vs David Silver's RAVE, of course...).
This also how I have interpreting AMAF and RAVE after being confused
initially thinking it was just two names for one thing.
I think it's because I haven't seen this approach evolve and I'm not too
familiar with the pre-RAVE AMAF, so perhaps I underestimate how
revolutionary the "descendants only" idea was.
AMAF was first used with programs that did not build a tree. Perhaps
this is why Peter Drake makes this interpretation. When I implemented
AMAF in Valkyria it was always self evident that "descendants only" is
only the only good way of making use of it, since search was so deep
that the positions cannot be compared.
Best
Magnus
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
