On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 11:18 -0400, Michael Williams wrote: > Don, did you retain the check in your version that has the weighted > AMAF?
No, I eliminated the check so that I could give an apples to apples assessment of the idea exactly as Michael Williams suggested. > What ever you did, could you also add a version to the study that does > the opposite? I think the right way to do that is to first compute how many moves are actually going to be used, then use the formula directly. Right now, if you use the test and his formula you would get uneven weightings, gaps as it were. Probably no big deal. Another idea is to weight as a function of how many points are on the board. So the question is do you compensate in any way for the missing moves or do you simply have the check and ignore the gaps? If you actually want to use something in a real program you should test all reasonable ideas and just see what works. - Don
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/
