[Computer-go] AMAF/RAVE + heavy playouts - is it save?

[Urban Hafner]

To make matters more difficult I assume that this also depends on the exact
node evaluation you’re using. There’s UCT + RAVE, then there’s just RAVE
(as used by Michi). And then you can add other things in there as well like
criticality (like Pachi, and at least at one point CrazyStone).

I personally saw a definite strength increase when adding RAVE to the
exploration strategy with heavy playouts but then my bot isn’t that strong
yet so it may be different for you. As always, there’s no replacement for
benchmarks.

Urban

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Tobias Pfeiffer <pragtob at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I haven't yet caught up on most recent go papers. If what I ask is
> answered in one of these, please point there.
>
> It seems everyone is using quite heavy playouts these days (nxn
> patterns, atari escapes, opening libraris, lots of stuff that I don't
> know yet, ...) - my question is how does that mix with AMAF/RAVE? I
> remember from the early papers, that they said it'd be dangerous to do
> it with non random playouts and that they shouldn't have too much logic.
>
> Which, well, makes sense (to me) because the argument is that we play
> random moves so they are order independent. With patterns that doesn't
> hold true anymore.
>
> What's the experience out there? Does it just still work? Does it not
> matter because you just "warm up" the tree? Or do you need to be careful
> with what heuristics you apply not too break RAVE/AMAF?
>
> Thank you!
> Tobi
>
> --
> www.pragtob.info
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>



-- 
Blog: http://bettong.net/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ujh
Homepage: http://www.urbanhafner.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20151104/46eca404/attachment.html>