[Computer-go] 7.0 Komi and weird deep search result

Aja ajahuang at gmail.com
Fri Apr 1 11:34:17 PDT 2011


For exploration term ==0, maybe we can regard draw as loss for a certain 
amount of simulations, such as n*legal_moves_of_this_node. After that we 
start to regard draw as draw. This can force the search to explore non-draw 
moves before closing its eyes.

Aja

-----原始郵件----- 
From: Brian Sheppard
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 2:00 AM
To: computer-go at dvandva.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] 7.0 Komi and weird deep search result

That's all fine, but UCT with exploration term == 0 does not asymptotically
converge in a ternary-valued space.

The problem is that the search is closing its eyes to the possibility of
winning. Both sides are happy to do that because neither side is exploring.

-----Original Message-----
From: computer-go-bounces at dvandva.org
[mailto:computer-go-bounces at dvandva.org] On Behalf Of Willemien
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:30 AM
To: computer-go at dvandva.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] 7.0 Komi and weird deep search result

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:28 AM,  <valkyria at phmp.se> wrote:
> Quoting Michael Williams <michaelwilliams75 at gmail.com>:
>
>> I wonder what would happen if you counted jigo as a loss for both
>> players...
>
> Interesting, it would then avoid all lines that are likely to lead to a
> draw. The problem is that it then not be able to see any difference
between
> a jigo and a loss which may be a problem in a position which is a clear
> jigo. What happens deeper in the tree does not matter, if there is only a
> few jigo candidate moves and many losing moves, the program will often
pick
> a losing move.
>
> So I think jigo must be evaluated at least better than losing perhaps
> something like 25% or so. But then I need to program some more because it
> would change how I update the tree, and that part of the program is quite
> messy with all the AMAF updating and so on.
>
> The question is: should jigo be counted balanced for both players or
should
> one perhaps bias the randomized winner for jigo playout. For example if
the
> program is winning 60% at root then jigo would count as win in only 40% of
> the cases for the color of program in the playouts. This would perhaps
drive
> the program more towards winning lines when it wins and towards jigo when
it
> loses.
>
If you follow my idea :
- count a win as 2 W
- count a loss as 2 L
this gives the option to
- count a jigo as 1 W  and 1 L

the winrate  with jigo will go to 50%.
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go at dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go at dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go 




More information about the Computer-go mailing list