Yes, this is the hash table idea I mentioned, although most people don't view this as a hash table - it is.
The enhanced version has actually improved it's result over the past
couple of hours:
Rank Name Elo + - games score oppo. draws
1 mwRefbot-004096 2691 22 21 1642 78% 2158 0%
2 refbot-008192 2675 20 20 1642 73% 2277 0%
3 refbot-004096 2650 20 20 1642 71% 2257 0%
4 refbot-002048 2564 20 20 1642 63% 2242 0%
5 refbot-001024 2440 22 22 1642 55% 2177 0%
6 refbot-000512 2265 26 26 1642 48% 2067 0%
7 refbot-000256 2006 33 34 1644 42% 1938 0%
8 refbot-000128 1651 40 41 1643 45% 1657 0%
9 refbot-000064 1293 39 39 1644 51% 1321 0%
10 refbot-000032 975 38 38 1643 52% 1052 0%
11 refbot-000016 630 32 31 1642 55% 786 0%
12 refbot-000008 375 24 24 1642 47% 654 0%
13 refbot-000004 256 22 22 1643 43% 561 0%
14 refbot-000002 148 21 21 1642 35% 500 0%
15 refbot-000001 6 22 22 1644 21% 487 0%
16 refbot-000000 0 21 22 1643 21% 489 0%
- Don
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 11:41 -0400, Michael Williams wrote:
> You can add the check back in and be more efficient than Don's nested loop by
> doing something like this (warning: untested code)...
>
>
>
> for (int mv = 0; mv < NNN; mv++)
> {
> credit[mv] = true; // initial assumption is that credit is
> awarded for any move
> }
> double weight = 1.0;
> double weightDelta = 2.0 / (ctm - savctm + 1);
> for (int i = savctm; i < ctm; i += 2)
> {
> int mv = mvs[i] & MASK;
>
> if (credit[mv])
> {
> wins[mv] += weight * sc;
> hits[mv] += weight;
> credit[mv] = false; // do not award credit for this move
> again
> }
> weight -= weightDelta;
>
> credit[mvs[i+1] & MASK] = false; // do not award credit for the
> opponent's move
> }
>
>
>
>
> Mark Boon wrote:
> > Hehe, this reminds me of the title of a CNN program: 'Keeping them
> > honest' ;-)
> >
> > OK, let me add that check back in to see if I get better results.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 28-okt-08, at 13:18, Michael Williams wrote:
> >
> >> My original chart of numbers was created before it occurred to me that
> >> maybe the check whether the move has been played before is not
> >> needed. It is of course possible that the check IS needed. I ran a
> >> new test after removing that check and the numbers don't look as good:
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
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/
