I remembered that MFG's UCT Tree is exactly a transposition table. In
Erica, I don't use transposition table. And Thanks to some useful data
structures and the idea in Fuego's paper of lockless hash table, the
cleaning-up of the tree after pondering takes very short time (shorter than
1 sec) e
Surely pondering can't give more strength benefit than perhaps 1.5x more
CPU
power?
Which program did you use for your experiments?
David
Erica against GnuGo, with short time setting.
I think the upper bound is 2x CPU power. If the opponent is too strong or
too weak for our program, then po
I can see the upper bound of 2x, but the lower bound is no benefit at all,
or a small loss in performance (due to cleaning up the tree after
pondering). It seems unlikely that the overall benefit would be greater
than 1.5x more time. This is nice, but for now, I have bigger issues to
work on.
Da
If you are 100% effective at guessing the opponent's reply, and use all of his
time to ponder, and your opponent thinks as long as you do, then you have 2x as
much thinking time compared to not pondering.
Of course, a 100% rate of guessing the opponent's reply is a tall order, unless
you play
Surely pondering can't give more strength benefit than perhaps 1.5x more CPU
power?
Which program did you use for your experiments?
David
> -Original Message-
> From: computer-go-boun...@dvandva.org [mailto:computer-go-
> boun...@dvandva.org] On Behalf Of Aja
> Sent: Thursday, September
>Actually in my experiments on 19x19, pondering gives a VERY big strength
>increase.
I agree with Aja; pondering is important to Pebbles.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Actually in my experiments on 19x19, pondering gives a VERY big strength
increase. This result is shown in our paper "Time Management for Monte-Carlo
Tree Search Applied to the Game of Go" to be published.
Aja
- Original Message -
From: "David Fotland"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 1
My own thinking about this is very like yours, or at least it was until
I saw it written.
After reading your post it occurred to me that I have been assuming the
algorithm always knows the best move (or at least that it always picks a
move at least as strong as its opponent). For the case of a
Many Faces does not ponder, but it's on the todo list. I don't expect
pondering to give a big strength increase compared to all the other things
queued up.
David
> -Original Message-
> From: computer-go-boun...@dvandva.org [mailto:computer-go-
> boun...@dvandva.org] On Behalf Of valky...
Quoting Darren Cook :
When the programs select the best move to play it also knows what move
is the *most likely best move* for the opponent given search to that point.
With speculative pondering all pondering goes into searching the reply
to that *most likely best* move.
If the opponent plays
Quoting Brian Sheppard :
In other words: a strong opponent will cause a lot of ponder hits and
speculative pondering is the best way to search effectively.
This makes sense, but actual measurements on CGS showed that
speculative pondering was worse. At least for Pebbles.
That experimental res
Oops. Should be:
"When you clarify, .."
Jacques.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
On anti-MCTS bot strategy:
I don’t know of a strategy, but there sure are principles.
I can state one as a proverb:
"We you clarify, you are helping the bot."
E.g., If a connection works but is not obvious, if a semeai
can be won but is not obvious, etc. the bot has to discover
it for each visi
13 matches
Mail list logo
