Now, I love this idea. A super fast cheap pattern matcher can act as input
into a neural network input layer in sort of a "pay additional attention
here and here and...".

On Apr 18, 2017 6:31 AM, "Brian Sheppard via Computer-go" <
computer-go@computer-go.org> wrote:

Adding patterns is very cheap: encode the patterns as an if/else tree, and
it is O(log n) to match.



Pattern matching as such did not show up as a significant component of
Pebbles. But that is mostly because all of the machinery that makes
pattern-matching cheap (incremental updating of 3x3 neighborhoods, and
related tricks) was a large component.



But I think that is the basic idea: pre-compute or incrementally compute
some basic functions of the board position so that pattern matching is
cheap. Then add as many patterns as possible.





*From:* Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] *On Behalf
Of *Jim O'Flaherty
*Sent:* Monday, April 17, 2017 7:05 AM
*To:* computer-go@computer-go.org
*Subject:* Re: [Computer-go] Patterns and bad shape



It seems chasing down good moves for bad shapes would be an explosion of
"exception cases", like combinatorially huge. So, while you would be saving
some branching in the search space, you would be ballooning up the number
of patterns for which to scan by orders of magnitude.



Wouldn't it be preferable to just have the AI continue to make the better
move emergently and generally from probabilities around win placements as
opposed to what appears to be a focus on one type of local optima?





On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 5:07 AM, lemonsqueeze <lemonsque...@free.fr> wrote:

Hi,

I'm sure the topic must have come up before but i can't seem to find it
right now, i'd appreciate if someone can point me in the right direction.

I'm looking into MM, LFR and similar cpu-based pattern approaches for
generating priors, and was wondering about basic bad shape:

Let's say we use 6d games for training. The system becomes pretty good at
predicting 6d moves by learning patterns associated with the kind of moves
6d players make.

However it seems it doesn't learn to punish basic mistakes effectively (say
double ataris, shapes with obvious defects ...) because they almost never
show up in 6d games =) They show up in the search tree though and without
good answer search might take a long time to realize these moves don't work.

Maybe I missed some later paper / development but basically,
Wouldn't it make sense to also train on good answers to bad moves ?
(maybe harvesting them from the search tree or something like that)

I'm thinking about basic situations like this which patterns should be able
to recognize:

       A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T
     +---------------------------------------+
  19 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
  18 | . . . O O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
  17 | . . X . X O . X O . . . . . . . . . . |
  16 | . . X . X O . O O . . . . . . X . . . |
  15 | . . . . . X X X X . . . . . . . . . . |
  14 | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
  13 | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . X . O . . |
  12 | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
  11 | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
  10 | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
   9 | . . O X . . . X . . . X O . . X O . . |
   8 | . . O X . . . O X X X O X)X X O O . . |
   7 | . O X . . . . . O O X O . X O O . . . |
   6 | O X X . X X X O . . O . . . X O X . . |
   5 | . O O . . O X . . . . . O . . . . . . |
   4 | . X O O O O X . . . O . . O . O . . . |
   3 | . X X X X O . . X . X X . . . . . . . |
   2 | . . . . X O . . . . . . O . . . . . . |
   1 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
     +---------------------------------------+

Patterns probably never see this during training and miss W L9,
For example :

In Remi's CrazyPatterns.exe L9 comes in 4th position:
   [ M10 N10 O6 L9 ...

With Pachi's large patterns it's 8th:
   [ G8  M10 G9  O17 N10 O6  J4  L9  ...

Cheers,
Matt

----

MM: Computing Elo Ratings of Move Patterns in the Game of Go
   https://www.remi-coulom.fr/Amsterdam2007/

LFR: Move Prediction in Go – Modelling Feature Interactions Using
      Latent Factors
   https://www.ismll.uni-hildesheim.de/pub/pdfs/wistuba_et_al_KI_2013.pdf


_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go



_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Reply via email to