orithm)
I did not however tried to compare that win ratio, with
the win ratio i would have got out of standard Amaf.
Best regard,
Denis FIDAALI.
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:55:03 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: computer-go@computer-go.org
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Mogo MCTS is not U
; Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:55:03 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: computer-go@computer-go.org
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Mogo MCTS is not UCT ?
>
> > I think it's now well known that Mogo doesn't use UCT.
> > I realize that i have no idea at all what Mogo do use fo
On 1-dec-08, at 18:55, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
I think it's now well known that Mogo doesn't use UCT.
I realize that i have no idea at all what Mogo do use for
it's MCTS.
A complicated formula mixing
(i) patterns (ii) rules (iii) rave values (iv) online statistics
Isn't that technically st
> I think it's now well known that Mogo doesn't use UCT.
> I realize that i have no idea at all what Mogo do use for
> it's MCTS.
A complicated formula mixing
(i) patterns (ii) rules (iii) rave values (iv) online statistics
Also we have a little learning (i.e. late parts of simulations
are evolv
Let's assume that the UCT formula is
UCTValue(parent, n) = winrate + sqrt((ln(parent.visits))/(5*n.nodevisits))
(taken from sensei library)
What is the Upper confidence bound term ? That would'nt be
sqrt((ln(parent.visits))/(5*n.nodevisits)) ??
I doubt that exploring only the move with the
On Dec 1, 2008, at 3:38 AM, Denis fidaali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think it's now well known that Mogo doesn't use UCT.
I realize that i have no idea at all what Mogo do use for
it's MCTS.
There are only two things i dislike about UCT :
- It's slow to compute.
- It's deterministic
I r
I think it's now well known that Mogo doesn't use UCT.
I realize that i have no idea at all what Mogo do use for
it's MCTS.
There are only two things i dislike about UCT :
- It's slow to compute.
- It's deterministic
I really wonder if there was an article describing
the new MCTS of mogo some
