Hi, Yamato,
I guess it should be not "* 3000" but "/ 3000".
Zen also uses this type of formula, but the constant value is rather
small. I use 400 for the latest version of Zen.
If you are right, then it makes sense. For "/3000", bias is around 0.009.
I use 600 for Erica, similar to Zen.
Aja wrote:
>> We use the Silver formula:
>>
>> rave_visits / (rave_visits + real_visits + rave_visits * real_visits *
>> 3000)
>>
>> The figure of 3000 is surprisingly resilient. Even with radically
>> different heuristics and playouts, it stays the empirical optimum.
>
> Interesting. According
Hi petr,
We use the Silver formula:
rave_visits / (rave_visits + real_visits + rave_visits * real_visits *
3000)
The figure of 3000 is surprisingly resilient. Even with radically
different heuristics and playouts, it stays the empirical optimum.
Interesting. According to Sylvain's ori
Hi Hiroshi,
(1 - beta) * (win_rate + 0.31 * sqrt( ln(parent_visits) / child_visits)) +
beta (rave_win_rate * 0.31 * sqrt( ln(rave_parent_visits) /
rave_child_visits))
I suggest to take off the exploration_term of RAVE, just like Silver
suggested in his PhD thesis. Considering exploration
For Aya,
(1 - beta) * (win_rate + 0.31 * sqrt( ln(parent_visits) / child_visits)) + beta (rave_win_rate * 0.31 * sqrt(
ln(rave_parent_visits) / rave_child_visits))
beta = sqrt(100 / (3 * child_visits + 100));
Aya uses Progressive Windening. High order N moves are only considerd.
PW_sort_N =
Hi!
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 12:18:46PM -0800, David Fotland wrote:
> For Many Faces, it is:
>
>
>
> (1 – beta) * (win_rate + 0.45 * sqrt( ln(parent_visits) / child visits)) +
> beta * rave_win_rate + mfgo_bias
Pachi:
(1 - beta) * (win_rate) + beta * (rave_win_rate)
"Even gam
David Fotland: <009501cba9f2$45e61f00$d1b25d...@com>:
>I like this proposal. I hope you also continue the annual championship.
>That should boost participation. These tournaments are a tremendous boon to
>the computer go community, and I'm really happy you are continuing them.
Same for me but I
Usually "AMAF" refers to an engine that does not build a tree.
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Aja wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> Thanks a lot. The state-of-the-art part of Compuetr Go in my thesis will be
> more accurate. Do you mean the whole MCTS scheme combined with UCB formula
> proposed by Mogo is
Am 31.12.2010 um 08:37 schrieb Robert Jasiek:
> On 31.12.2010 03:16, Fuming Wang wrote:
>> This is certainly a good time to sit back and look at what got us here. The
>> following key ideas have been mentioned so far: UCB, MCTS, RAVE, Pattern and
>> Go knowledge during MC simulation.These ideas ar
For Erica, it's almost the same with Many Faces, except that I use
progressive_bias not mfgo_bias (of course, if David send the details of
mfgo_bias to me, I will use :)
I compute beta by David Silver's formula (70 elo stronger than the original
one) and UCT_C is set to 0.6. I can't get any goo
Hi Erik,
Thanks a lot. The state-of-the-art part of Compuetr Go in my thesis will be
more accurate. Do you mean the whole MCTS scheme combined with UCB formula
proposed by Mogo is completely inspried by Levente's work? If I understand
Remi's paper correctly, Remi can change Crazy Stone's MCTS
In your survey, the spread for a super-human program, from those that
correctly predicted 2010 for shodan,
is from 2023 to 2150.
So even between the best predictors sofar, there was huge disagreement
when it comes topling humanity ...
I guess current knowledge of the effectiveness and scalabilit
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 8:19 PM, P Shotwell wrote:
> Happy New Year to all
> Just a note: As a go historian, I interviewed John and summarized his
> findings along with my other articles that have short interviews with
> Olivier, Remi and Dave at www.usgo.org/bobhighlibrary.
> Peter Shotwell
Nice
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
>> In Computer Olympiad 2007, Steenvreter was gold medal on 9x9.
...
> Obviously it was following MoGo's lead with UCT (the tournament was held in
> June 2007, well after the remarkable success of MoGo). I don't mean to
> discredit Steenvrete
> Despite his loss of the bet on the surface, I congratulate Darren for
> almost correctly predicting the 19x19 computer strength development!
Actually my own prediction in 1997 was hopelessly optimistic. Here is
the 1997 list:
http://dcook.org/gobet/mail.19970901.txt
As you can see congratulat
I like this proposal. I hope you also continue the annual championship.
That should boost participation. These tournaments are a tremendous boon to
the computer go community, and I'm really happy you are continuing them.
I prefer the January tournament to be 19x19, because otherwise I have to
sp
It would be interesting to see the actual formulas used for choosing the more
to try in the tree part of the search.
For Many Faces, it is:
(1 – beta) * (win_rate + 0.45 * sqrt( ln(parent_visits) / child visits)) +
beta * rave_win_rate + mfgo_bias
beta is the old Mogo formula of sqrt
Now that I am back from London (the man/machine challenge, and
refereeing the London Open Go Tournament), I must urgently plan the
schedule of KGS bot tournaments for 2011.
It will be something like the 2010 schedule (see
http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/future.html ), but with four "slow"
tournam
I confess I did not think of the existence of correlations. I simply
thought 1.2% was quite low,
wondered how that could be, and marvelled at how close this simple
calculation came to
that result. My feathers may deserve some ruffling - but I remain
obstinately mellow! Anyway,
fwiw, it was my
Happy New Year to all
Just a note: As a go historian, I interviewed John and summarized his
findings along with my other articles that have short interviews with
Olivier, Remi and Dave at www.usgo.org/bobhighlibrary.
Peter Shotwell
___
Computer-go mailing
Hi!
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 02:39:46PM +, Nick Wedd wrote:
> I don't know what happened with pasky. I noticed him there, and
> gave him permission to chat, but I did not see him use it. I tried
> to chat directly to him, but received no response.
Intriguing, I received no response eithe
I think you have perhaps misunderstood. As I read it, Arthur was refering to
his own analytic result (1.232) as being "on the high side", not John's
result in the paper. Arthur is implicitly assuming that John's number is
correct (which I think we all are), and then rationalising what the
discr
Hi Fuming,
C*RAVE+(1-C)*UCT
C is computed dynamically in search, but not set to a fixed value. Maybe you
mean UCT_C,
UCT=UCT_mean+UCT_C*exploration_term
What Petr and Olivier do, I think, is set UCT_C to 0, to disable the
exploration_term, not the weight of RAVE.
Aja
- Original Messa
Got it. Thx.
Fuming
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Go Fast wrote:
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Rémi Coulom
> Date: Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 8:22 AM
> Subject: [computer-go] Experiments with UCT
> To: computer-go
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I mentioned UCT in one of my previous messa
Hi Alvaro,
I think you have perhaps misunderstood. As I read it, Arthur was
refering to his own analytic result (1.232) as being "on the high side",
not John's result in the paper. Arthur is implicitly assuming that
John's number is correct (which I think we all are), and then
rationalising w
Hi Aja,
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Aja wrote:
> Hi Fuming,
>
> Most of the current strong programs are using UCT combined with RAVE (a
> kind of AMAF). The formula is like this (there are many variants),
>
> C*RAVE+(1-C)*UCT
>
This has been my understanding. However, I am surprized to f
It is really an interesting paper. I will try to understand its proof or
write a program to verify it.
Aja
- Original Message -
From: ""Ingo Althöfer"" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Combinatorics of Go
And to add one
Hi Fuming,
Most of the current strong programs are using UCT combined with RAVE (a kind of
AMAF). The formula is like this (there are many variants),
C*RAVE+(1-C)*UCT
C is the weight of RAVE. As far as I know, there are at least two useful
formula to compute C:
1. The first formula was propose
On 1 janv. 2011, at 15:13, Fuming Wang wrote:
> Hi Remi,
>
> Thanks for the reply. If I understand correctly, for outcomes of 0 or 1, the
> formula would become something like the following, right?
>
> variance = u - u^2 + 1/S
>
> Best regards,
> Fuming
Yes, it is correct. A random variable w
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> On 01.01.2011 15:08, Álvaro Begué wrote:
>> If you don't trust John's numbers
>
> It is not about trust but about taking time for understanding his proofs.
But you certainly can take the time to write the program I suggested...
_
On 01.01.2011 15:08, Álvaro Begué wrote:
> If you don't trust John's numbers
It is not about trust but about taking time for understanding his proofs.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mail
In message <4d1c3938.1040...@snafu.de>, Robert Jasiek
writes
Despite his loss of the bet on the surface, I congratulate Darren for
almost correctly predicting the 19x19 computer strength development! It
has been an extraordinarly impressive improvement during the last 3
years! Before 19x19 was
In message
, steve
uurtamo writes
in the last game, a comment i especially noted was that miai was
handled poorly by the computer player and was a seemingly effective
strategy for playing against a computer, since there were many miai
that john left for later. once two fights got close enough t
So, the current strong programs are more like AMAF instead of UCT, right?
Fuming
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 11:32 AM, David Fotland wrote:
> I still have a UCB term, but it's probably because I depend more on Many
> Face's move generator. I have a rave term, but it's contribution is small.
> It see
Hi Remi,
Thanks for the reply. If I understand correctly, for outcomes of 0 or 1, the
formula would become something like the following, right?
variance = u - u^2 + 1/S
Best regards,
Fuming
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> Hi Fuming,
>
> Sigma is the sum of playout values
The people that think the number is low or high have bad intuitions,
that's all. Writing a program that generates random configurations and
checks whether they are valid is fairly trivial. If you don't trust
John's numbers, that's what you can do.
Alvaro.
On Saturday, January 1, 2011, Kahn Jonas
Intriguing!
A position is obviously illegal if any point is occupied by a stone
surrounded by opposite-colour stones.
At the 4 corners, 25 out of 27 combinations will be legal. The proportion
(25/27)^4 will survive.
At the 68 edges, 79 out of 81: (79/81)^68 will survive.
At the 289 interior po
Intriguing!
A position is obviously illegal if any point is occupied by a stone
surrounded by opposite-colour stones.
At the 4 corners, 25 out of 27 combinations will be legal. The
proportion (25/27)^4 will survive.
At the 68 edges, 79 out of 81: (79/81)^68 will survive.
At the 289 interior
I haven't read the paper myself, but from a Wikipedia page that
references the paper: "Tromp and Farnebäck show that on a 19×19 board,
about 1.2% of board positions are legal (no stones without liberties
exist on the board) .As the board gets larger, the percentage of the
positions that is
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:26:45 +0100
> Von: Olivier Teytaud
>
> ...
> Also, there are contributors to MCTS older than MCTS - Monte-Carlo people
> (Cazenave, Bouzy...) and people using
> tree exploration in planning (Péret Garcia is one of my favorite
> ref
And to add one more point:
He is also the same person that participated
in the design of the Tromp-Taylor rule set.
So, John is sort of an all-purpose man.
Ingo.
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 01:40:20 -0800
> Von: Robert Solovay
> An: Aja , computer-go@dvandva.o
At 01:09 AM 1/1/2011, you wrote:
... If I understand correctly, they computed the
State-space complexity of 19x19 Go to be
2.08168199382· 10^170, which is really a big number.
3^(19*19)=1.740896506590319E172 is all
combinations of black, white and vacant
intersections on a 19 by 19 board. bu
Definitely the same John Tromp.
--Bob Solovay
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Aja wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> When searching for start-of-the-art of Computer Go for my thesis, I
> discovered a very interesting paper "Combinatorics of Go" by John Tromp and
> Gunnar Farneback. I wonder if it is the sam
Dear all,
When searching for start-of-the-art of Computer Go for my thesis, I discovered
a very interesting paper "Combinatorics of Go" by John Tromp and Gunnar
Farneback. I wonder if it is the same John Tromp that played with Many Faces.
If I understand correctly, they computed the State-space
44 matches
Mail list logo
