maybe because it doesn't understand "done"? perfect play is impossible, random variance will cause scores to drop even if the model plays well and "wins". feels like it would get stuck in a loop trying to improve what can't be improved.
The optimizer doesn't need to understand anything it's just an iterated mathematical construct. The author simply didn't bother to implement the necessary details to ensure numerical stability.
Alternatively it might be a problem with the scoring model in the end game.
That is what I thought op was saying when he used the word "understood". No need to jump on people using every day language that is still easily understood in context IMO.
