[computer-go] Re: myCtest-10k-AMAF-x on CGOS

[Christoph Birk]

On Feb 15, 2008, at 3:29 AM, Tim Foden wrote:
> In your "pure MC program", do you use UCB1 to choose the next move  
> to search at the root? If not, what algorithm are you using? I'm  
> currently using UCB1 for my test in Fluke.

No, it uses a random move even at the root node.
myCtest does NOT create a tree (except for the UCT version). That  
probably
explains why myCtest gains so much (more than Fluke) for addng AMAF

>> 'myCtest-xxk-AMAF-y' has only one addition. It assigns the random-  
>> playout result not only to the first move, but to a fraction of  
>> all moves (simple all-moves-as-first).  > What's different about  
>> the -3, -5, and -8 versions? There seems to be > significant  
>> strength differences between them. using N := moves in random  
>> simulation a := AMAF moves a = pow(N,y) with y = 0.25 (3) y = 0.50  
>> (5) y = 0.75 (8) due to the name-length limitation of CGOS (18  
>> characters) Christoph
> A question about the AMAF version... When you are updating the  
> statistics for the AMAF moves... which moves are you using? e.g.  
> are you using just the moves of the side to move (e.g. move 1, move  
> 3, move 5.... move n), or every move (e.g. move 1, move 2, move  
> 3... move n), or some other thing?

I use of course only the moves of 'this' player , I guess that  
corresponds to
move 1,3,5,...n in you example.

> When I tried it with every move Fluke seemed to play noticeably  
> weaker than with every other move.

I would expect that. If you use moves that were not played by the
winning/losing side that should mix up the statistics of good/bad moves
and create a somehow random move.

> I also notice that there's a myCtest-10k-AMAF, with no '-y' on the  
> end. Is this the same as the one with '-8', or is there some other  
> change?

myCtest-AMAF is the final version ... I think it uses the 0.75 exponent.

Christoph