Re: [computer-go] SlugGo v.s. Many Faces update

[David G Doshay <ddoshay@xxxxxxx>]

On 31, Mar 2005, at 4:38 PM, Evan Daniel wrote:
> It's starting to sound more and more like GoFigure :)  (With the
> exceptions that GoFigure isn't clusterable and only plays 9x9, and
> searches to the end instead of a fixed depth...)
In what ways?

> Have you solved the problems you were having with poor opening play (I
> have my own answers to that question, and would be curious to
> compare)?
We have a kludge I am not proud of. I hope to improve upon it soon.
We have been busy trying to make up for all the lost time rather than
trying to change features that may be ugly but work well enough for
now.

> What branch factor settings are you using,
We are presently doing combinations that end up with 24 paths:
24 - 0
12 - 2
8 - 3
6 - 4
6 - 2 - 2

We have not tested them all yet. We will look at those results
before deciding about trying combinations that start with 4
(and would allow for richer branching after that). We have
decided against branching like 12 - 0 - 2 (sub-branching
only on our moves).

> and have you noticed much strength variance?
"Much strength variance" is what I notice most clearly,
even with all the parameters exactly the same! ;^)

With all parameters the same other than branching factors
we have seen win/loss ratios of:
1.0 (win 50%)
2.0 (win 67%)
2.75 (win 73%)

... but we are still gathering games and will have to gather
many more before we even believe that these numbers are
right.

Cheers,
David


_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/