I would be interested to see if your biased version can pass my eventual conformance tests. If it can, more power to you, I might use the idea myself.
- Don On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 09:36 -0200, Mark Boon wrote: > > On 24-okt-08, at 21:19, Don Dailey wrote: > > > > > > > \ > > > I'm now running a twogtp test against your ref-bot. After 1,000 > > > games > > > my bot has a winning percentage of 48.8% (+/- 1.6) according to > > > twogtp. > > > > > > That is well within 2 standard deviations so I don't think there is > > a > > problem. In fact it is within 1 standard deviation - you should get > > scores outside 1 SD fairly often, so this is actually quite good. > > > > > > > I've run another 1,000 games. Now I get 49.2% (+/- 1.6) > > > There's a small difference with the previous run, and that is that > this time I used the move-selection > process that has the bias in it towards moves next to illegal points. > Apparently it doesn't have any noticeable effect on the outcome. Since > it's more efficient by a good bit, and I hate to keep two versions of > routines that do basically the same thing, I think I'm going to keep > the one with the bias. > > > This version is also running on CGOS now. It seems to be converging to > the same ~1280 rating the other refbots have, although it probably > didn't play a significant number of games yet. > > > I'm running on a bit faster hardware than you do (2.8Ghz vs 2.67 Ghz.) > but it does the benchmark in about 26 seconds in 64-bit mode, even > with the suicide check in place. That's a good bit faster than your C > version even. But I think you didn't spend much time, if any, > optimizing for performance. > > > After the weekend I'll make my stuff public, either through git or > some other method. > > > Mark > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
