original eye method = 407 ELO alt eye method #1 = 583 ELO alt eye method #2 = 518 ELO
While both alternate methods are probably better than the original, I'm not convinced there's a significant difference between the two alternate methods. The cross-tables for both are fairly close and could be luck of the draw (and even which weak bots were on at the time). I put raw numbers below. Since I made one other change when doing the alt eye method, I should rerun the original with that other change as well (how I end random playouts and score them to allow for other eye definitions). While I think the alternate eye definitions helped, I don't think they accounted for more than 100-200 ELO vs ego110_allfirst orig= 33/46 = 71% #1 = 17/20 = 85% #2 = 16/18 = 89% vs gotraxx-1.4.2a orig=N/A #1 = 2/8 = 25% #2 = 3/19 = 16% On 9/17/07, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/17/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Another way to test this, to see if this is your problem, is for ME to > > implement YOUR eye definition and see if/how much it hurts AnchorMan. > > > > I'm pretty much swamped with work today - but I may give this a try at > > some point. > > > > I'd be interested in seeing that. It looks like my first hack at an > alternate eye implementation bought my AMAF version about 150 ELO (not > tested with anything else). Of course, what I did isn't what others are > using. I'll do another "alteye" version either today or tomorrow. It may > be possible that some of my 150 was because I changed the lengths of the > random playouts. >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
