On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 08:24:43AM +0800, Aja wrote:
Zen uses sequence-like AND probabilistic simulation.
Basically it plays around the previous move randomly like MoGo, and these
moves are biased by gamma values like Crazy Stone.
I am also trying to use probabilistic simulation on the whole
Hi Petr,
Hmm, I thought based on your paper that Erica uses a sort of a hybrid -
probabilistic simulation completely, but with all but 3x3 feature filled
in only around the last move anyway. So, one could say, Zen-like, but
with 3x3-based tenuki sampling or whatever you want to call it. :-)
Hi;
C*RAVE+(1-C)*UCT
This has been my understanding. However, I am surprized to find out that
people have been setting C close to one, according to Petr and Oliver's
postings, which is essentially AMAF. MF apparently is doing something
different.
As explained by Aja, I did not mean
Hi Olivier,
Thanks for all your corrections and detailed replies. I agree with them. If you
think it's OK, I would like to describe Mogo's contributions in my thesis
according to what you enumerated and explained.
Considering and responding to the previous move in simulation, especially
These days, programs of Crazy Stone thread, like Zen, Erica, Aya...etc, do
stochastic simulation, different with Mogo-type, fixed-sequence simulation.
I think CrazyStone's update formula allows more flexibility than the
pattern-based approach of MoGo. So it has better potential;
I have no idea
Hi Olivier,
I forgot that you also contributed to Mogo's pattern design, besides Sylvain
and Yizao. Sorry for neglecting your contribution. :)
Actually I make fillboard and nakade as features in Erica and they work
fine. But indeed, efficiency is a problem in our probabilistic simulation.
Sorry for neglecting your contribution. :)
You can neglect mine, no problem with that, it's a reality :-)
Actually I make fillboard and nakade as features in Erica and they work
fine. But indeed, efficiency is a problem in our probabilistic simulation.
For us fillboard = around 80% with
Hi Aja,
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Aja ajahu...@gmail.com wrote:
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
80% is a big improvement. Indeed, I don't get that much in Erica.
Aja
- Original Message -
From: Olivier Teytaud
To: Aja ; computer-go
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Fwd: News on Tromp-Cook ?
Sorry for neglecting your contribution
: Sunday, January 02, 2011 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Fwd: News on Tromp-Cook ?
Hi Aja,
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Aja ajahu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Fuming,
Â
C*RAVE+(1-C)*UCT
Â
C is computed dynamically in search, but not set to a fixed value. Maybe
Yamato and I have independently started development of Zen and FudoGo
(resp) with sharing the same idea*, combining MoGo's sequence-like
simulation policy and CrazyStone's larger patterns, though later Zen
uses more complicated policy.
*This is one of the reasons I have started the joint project
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Olivier Teytaud olivier.teyt...@lri.fr wrote:
mogo's MC was implemented in many
strong programs, and influenced the MC of all other
strong programs. I think there's no exception to this. I was personally of
little influence on that, but I was here for clearly
Aja wrote:
Yamato and I have independently started development of Zen and FudoGo
(resp) with sharing the same idea*, combining MoGo's sequence-like
simulation policy and CrazyStone's larger patterns, though later Zen
uses more complicated policy.
*This is one of the reasons I have started
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Olivier Teytaud olivier.teyt...@lri.fr wrote:
The playout policy I used in the 2007 version of Steenvreter was
developed independently of the Mogo policy. However, some time after
the olympiad I also implemented Mogo's version for comparison. IIRC
the policy
On 01/02/2011 10:17 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
The playout policy I used in the 2007 version of Steenvreter was
developed independently of the Mogo policy.
Did this policy include the idea of sequences (playing near the last
move), and if so, was that developed independently?
Memories
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org wrote:
On 01/02/2011 10:17 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
The playout policy I used in the 2007 version of Steenvreter was
developed independently of the Mogo policy.
Did this policy include the idea of sequences (playing near
Hi Erik,
My reason for posting was not to brag. It was my own choice not to
publish, so I accept it when laymen forget about Steenvreter. However,
I think a guy like Jan Willemson, who's now almost entirely written
out of the history of MCTS, really deserved some credit.
Many people will
Hi Aja,
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Aja ajahu...@gmail.com wrote:
Many people will be very interested if you publish something about
Steenvreter. Beating Mogo without learning Mogo's paper at that time? That's
incredible. :)
Well, that's not exactly true either. I did of course read some
On 01/02/2011 05:24 PM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
Agreed, as long as you don't deny things that were out there long
before someone wrote 'the' paper. I have seen a rather natural
progression from work of Brugman, Kaminski, Bouzy, Helmstetter,
Hamlen, etc. to where we are today. Pinpointing the
Aja wrote:
Zen uses sequence-like AND probabilistic simulation.
Basically it plays around the previous move randomly like MoGo, and these
moves are biased by gamma values like Crazy Stone.
I am also trying to use probabilistic simulation on the whole board, but
it does not yet succeed. The
the playouts were
supposed to do than most other people at that time. :)
Aja
- Original Message -
From: Erik van der Werf erikvanderw...@gmail.com
To: Aja ajahu...@gmail.com; computer-go@dvandva.org
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Fwd: News on Tromp-Cook
Aja wrote:
I suppose that probabilistic simulation on the whole board is not suitable
for some sort of heuristics, like seki, long semeai or ladder-safe.
Does Erica handle those in the playouts correctly?
It's not true. Erica handle seki, semeai and ladder in the playouts combined
with
-go@dvandva.org
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Fwd: News on Tromp-Cook ?
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 fotl...@smart-games.com
wrote:
I still
Dear all,
the original MCTS paper is by Rémi Coulom (to the best of my knowledge at
least...). It's clear for us that we did not invent MCTS
and always referenced Remi's paper.
*1) For UCB-like formula:*
- On the theoretical side, the consistency proof of MCTS without the
UCT-like exploration
Hi,
I'd like to advise against using the exact algorithm I described in my 2006
paper. I compared it to UCT at that time, and UCT performed better. I am sorry
I don't have a reference to my data any more. I posted the results to the
mailing list. It used to be archived at that link:
On 31.12.2010 13:31, Rémi Coulom wrote:
being less selective at the root may improve strength
So what about P; P ca. 3 ply, at each of these plies, a) firstly filter
obviously bad moves, b) secondly consider each still available move's
children by MC / UCT? Or, more generally, dynamically
- Original Message -
From: Olivier Teytaud
To: Aja ; computer-go
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Fwd: News on Tromp-Cook ?
Dear all,
the original MCTS paper is by Rémi Coulom (to the best of my knowledge at
least...). It's clear for us that we did
On 12/31/2010 07:31 AM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
I'd like to advise against using the exact algorithm I described in
my 2006 paper. I compared it to UCT at that time, and UCT performed
better. I am sorry I don't have a reference to my data any more. I
posted the results to the mailing list. It used
Hi Remi,
Thanks for the suggestions. Sorry for inaccuracies in my previous
statements. Now I have read your paper more carefully, I find in the
appendex many discussions related to improvements on playout move
selections. On another note, I find that formula you gave on variance
calculation very
-- Forwarded message --
From: Fuming Wang fuming...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] News on Tromp-Cook ?
To: Aja ajahu...@gmail.com
Hi Aja,
Remi and S. Gelly's paper both come out in 2006,and I just checked that they
did not reference each
- Original Message -
From: Fuming Wang
To: computer-go@dvandva.org
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 2:02 PM
Subject: [Computer-go] Fwd: News on Tromp-Cook ?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Fuming Wang fuming...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Subject
31 matches
Mail list logo
