It turns out that I did not turn off all of the stuff that strengthened the random player - so hopefully I have much weaker players now.
(There was a bug that made the program too strong :-) - Don On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 21:34 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > I'm having an interesting problem - my hope is to set > a random legal move making player (who doesn't fill > 1 point eyes) at ELO zero. > > I feel this would define a nice standard that is > easy to reproduce and verify experimentally and > at least would be a known quantity even 100 years > from now. > > But I'm having a difficult time creating players > who are slightly better than this at 19x19. I need > incrementally better and better players. > > But even a monte carlo program that does 1 simulation > rarely loses, if my experiment is correct. > > The way it's coded has this effect conceptually: > > 1. Pick a random move R > > 2. Play a random game from R > > 3. If the game is a win, play R, otherwise > pick some other move chosen randomly. > > > It's interesting that this strategy is so much stronger > than completely random play, because it's very close > to random, or so I thought. > > I guess I have to make even this strategy more random. > > I never thought I would have trouble making a weak > player! > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
