Jonas Kahn wrote:
This looks very much like the way human players work (albeit with a
tree): read local sequences and outcomes that can be kept in reserve for
a long time, but called about any time depending on the situation. Big
chunks.
I had the idea that a tree could be added later
Don,
You are correct; it's all about the timing. The word
Miai refers to a pair of moves which are equivalent;
if the opponent plays one, it is urgent to play the
other.
For instance, two groups with one eye each are
diagonally connected; there are two ways to make the
solid connection.
.x
x.
On 1-apr-08, at 17:37, Don Dailey wrote:
That's partly why I'm interested in exploring on the fly leaning.
Learning outside the context of the position being played may not have
much relevance.
That would be most interesting indeed. I'd like to try but keep
running into obstacles.
For
By contrast, you
should test (in the tree) a kind of move that is either good or average,
but not either average or bad, even if it's the same amount of
information. In the tree, you look for the best move. Near the root at
least; when going deeper and the evaluation being less precise,
Mark Boon wrote:
On 1-apr-08, at 17:37, Don Dailey wrote:
That's partly why I'm interested in exploring on the fly leaning.
Learning outside the context of the position being played may not have
much relevance.
That would be most interesting indeed. I'd like to try but keep
running into
So I believe a better approach is a heavy playout approach with NO
tree. Instead, rules would evolve based on knowledge learned from each
playout - rules that would eventually move uniformly random moves into
highly directed ones. All-moves-as-first teaches us that in the
general case
A recurrent concept popping up in discussions on how to improve
playouts is balance. So I would like to try to share my philosophy
behind the playouts of Valkyria and how I define balance and how it
relates to the evaluation of go positions.
*Background
In an old school program the
don,
But I also discovered that there seems to be no benefit whatsoever in
removing them from the play-outs.I have no real explanation for
this. But it does tell me that the play-outs are very different in
nature from the tree - you cannot just use the same algorithms for
Hi Magnus,
Your post makes a great deal of sense. I agree with all the points you
have stated. I don't think you have ever made an illogical post like
most of us have (including myself) and they are always well thought out
and worded.
I have a response to this comment:
Still I think
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have a response to this comment:
Still I think predicting the best moves is very important in the
tree part, but this may be much less important in the playouts, and
perhaps even detrimental as some people have experienced.
A class of bad
steve uurtamo wrote:
don,
But I also discovered that there seems to be no benefit whatsoever in
removing them from the play-outs.I have no real explanation for
this. But it does tell me that the play-outs are very different in
nature from the tree - you cannot just use the
I think there was some confusion in Don's post on ``out of atari'' in
play-outs.
For one thing, I do not agree with the maximal information argument.
Testing ``out of atari'' moves is not good because they might be good,
or might be bad, but merely because they might be good. By contrast, you
Jonas Kahn wrote:
I think there was some confusion in Don's post on ``out of atari'' in
play-outs.
For one thing, I do not agree with the maximal information argument.
This is more a theory than an argument. Maybe I didn't express it very
well either.
It's a pretty solid principle in
Don,
I'd strongly agree. You must know whether ladders work
or not, whether a nakade play works or not, whether
various monkey jumps and hanes and so forth succeed or
not. In and of themselves, few moves are objectively
good or bad in any sense - one has to try them and see
what happens.
Some
terry mcintyre wrote:
Don,
I'd strongly agree. You must know whether ladders work
or not, whether a nakade play works or not, whether
various monkey jumps and hanes and so forth succeed or
not. In and of themselves, few moves are objectively
good or bad in any sense - one has to try them
15 matches
Mail list logo
