Rémi Coulom offers a formula for the criticality of point x.
(Criticality: a Monte-Carlo Heuristic for Go Programs)
Criticality being a measure of how important holding x is for winning.
c(x) = v(x)/N - (w(x)/N * W/N + b(x)/N * B/N)
N: number of playouts
W/B: playouts won by white/black
Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
There would be 2 levels of criticality:
1. How important is the string for winning the game?
2. How important are points in the vicinity for attacking/defending this
string?
(possibly with ordering information)
Few months ago I tested it without success.
String
Few months ago I tested it without success.
String criticality seems a nice idea, but how should it be implemented?
Just giving high priority to the liberties does not work, because that
cannot be distinguished from the simple dame-filling.
Can you suggest a concrete formula?
--
Yamato
a shot
Maybe it would be good enough to only update the string criticality first.
More expensive calculations for the found critical strings could kick in
later.
You asked for a formula, and I tried to comply, but its really only
conceptual.
Also there will still be points that are good for both,
Gelly and Silver (Combining Online and Offline Knowledge in UCT,
section 6) give this formula for the weight given to RAVE values (as
opposed to the direct MC values):
sqrt(k / (3*n(s) + k))
Here, k is a constant and n(s) is the number of playouts through state
s. Clearly, as the number
Maybe from a different angle, but maybe you remember me writing about
'stone-age'. Basically what it did was assuming strings created during
the playout are less critical than existing strings. I used this to
limit my tactical search by a great deal by not doing any search on
'new' strings. This
Just a small comment: adding one more term taking into account big patterns
(big = more than 3x3) provide a huge improvement in 19x19. In my humble
opinion there is more to win with adding such a term than by modifying the
formula. Of course, it implies collecting a database of SGF files and
Stone-Age - spooky concept :-)
I suppose it has some relationship to generally lighter playouts deeper in
the tree.
Have you experimented some more with this?
Perhaps the cutoff point should be somewhere in the future though, moving
towards the present as the game progesses.
Otherwise you
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Stefan Kaitschick
stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de wrote:
Stone-Age - spooky concept :-)
I suppose it has some relationship to generally lighter playouts deeper in
the tree.
Have you experimented some more with this?
No, I didn't have time to explore this
My mistake. I misstook start of the playout for the board position.
Stefan
- Original Message -
From: Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Stone-Age
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009
Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
There would be 2 levels of criticality:
1. How important is the string for winning the game?
2. How important are points in the vicinity for attacking/defending this
string?
(possibly with ordering information)
I like this idea. I'd also forgotten about the point
Hi Petr,
I missed this posting yours at feb 10.
On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:44 AM, Petr Baudis wrote:
Hi!
There has been some talk about implementing monte-carlo playouts on
GPUs in the past, I have heard rumours about Polish bachelor student
doing libego - GPGPU conversion as a project, etc.
The go expertise in Many Faces includes 1901 big patterns. These are input
by myself, and are up to 8x8. They include don't cares, such as (white or
empty), so are equivalent to far more patterns that just have stone
positions. The patterns are also qualified with the strength of the groups
I use the first formula, with K equal 500.
-Original Message-
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go-
boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Peter Drake
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:59 AM
To: Computer Go
Subject: [computer-go] Conflicting RAVE formulae
14 matches
Mail list logo
