[Computer-go] replacing dynamic komi with a scoring function

[Aja Huang]

Yes, computer try the win the game, but right now MCTS have problems by 
simply using winning rate in 19x19 Go. That’s why we are using “dynamic kom”, 
which is collected/computed from "average score”, to cure this problem. My 
point is that using average score is maybe not enough. We might also have to 
use the information of “location” from the “ownership map” (looks to me a 
nice word).

Aja


From: Don Dailey
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:24 AM
To: Aja Huang ; computer-go at dvandva.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] replacing dynamic komi with a scoring function


On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Aja Huang <ajahuang at gmail.com> wrote:

  It’s easy to detect “secure” territory by collecting the information of 
ownership from the playouts.

I have always called this the "ownership map" for lack of a better term.   I 
have heard people refer to is as a "futures map."


  If Black owns a region of points in 95% of the playouts, for example, we 
can “safely” say this region is Black’s territory (unless the playouts are 
seriously biased, which is independent to this problem). Go is a game of 
territory and the objective of every move is to gain more territory.

Computers have a different objective.    Computer try to win the game, 
humans trying to win territory.


  To cure this problem, besides winning rate we might have to use the 
information of not only “average score” but also “average score of certain 
points”.

I fear the program would find ways to trade some territory in for other. 
It does seem like there should be some way to use this information to help.

Don



  Aja


  From: Stefan Kaitschick
  Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 4:38 AM
  To: computer-go at dvandva.org
  Subject: Re: [Computer-go] replacing dynamic komi with a scoring function

  By the way, are we sure it is underestimation of the edges and corners ? 
Rather than overestimation of the centre ?


    I know those are equivalent for play itself, but the answer suggests
    different tries for solution. In the first case, we want to make the bot
    more aware that he will keep its edge territory. In the second, we want
    to make it understand that inways made be made in its beautiful centre.

    Jonas


  I think they overestimate both the corners and the center, but they 
overestimate the corners less. :-)
  They will often force from the outside, even when an invasion is 
relatively simple and the outside forcing stones aren't worth much. I can 
only call that overestimating corner safety.
  But at the same time, the center is given even greater priority, because 
the playouts so often come back with a kill of would be invaders.
  Crazy Stone seems to be ahead of the other bots in this.
  My guess is that it's using simulation balancing in the playouts to 
purposely degrade attacking moves.
  Ajas' idea of biasing towards secure territory is a typical strong players 
idea. But what does "secure" mean?
  Maybe the idea Ingo brought up, to naively give corner and edge territory 
a higher weight in the early stages of the game, is more promising. It feels 
like a crutch, but when you have broken leg, a crutch is great.

  Stefan



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20120109/282a1c59/attachment.html>