[computer-go] Hello / Pondering

[Peter Drake]

Orego also uses option B. Because UCT eventually focuses search on  
the most promising moves, it probably will spend most of its time on  
a single move, effectively doing A without the need for extra  
parameter settings.

Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/



On May 1, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Chris Fant wrote:

>> You can:
>>
>> a) Guess your opponents next response, and assume they will make this
>> move. Fire off a search from the resultant position. If you guess
>> correctly, then you save X seconds. But if you only guess correctly p
>> % of the time, you expect to gain pX seconds of extra thinking time
>> per move.
>>
>> b) Think as if you were your opponent. Once your opponent makes a
>> move, you keep the relevant sub-tree. This means that you will always
>> get useful information from each ponder, but (assuming that you don't
>> use the transposition information) you have wasted time searching
>> moves the opponent didn't choose. I think a crude way of estimating
>> the amount of time gained by this form of pondering would be to
>> determine the expected value of:
>
> Don has stated a couple of times that option (A) worked better for
> him.  I chose option (B) without testing option (A) because I did not
> want to have to decide how many seconds to use to guess the opponent
> move before starting to think about my next move.
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20070501/bed3c1e9/attachment.htm