Petr Baudis wrote:
I got kind of lost in the thread and lost track about which bots should
I actually compare myself to. ;-)
So I have created this page:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?CGOSBasicUCTBots
Good idea.
and summed up what I could find in the thread about the various bots.
Pleas
Don Dailey wrote:
Tim Foden wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
I suggest
exactly 25,000 play-outs that we should standardize on.50,000 will
tax my spare computer which I like to use for modest CGOS tests.
If it is agreed, I will start a 25k test.My prediction is that this
will finish
Don Dailey wrote:
I suggest
exactly 25,000 play-outs that we should standardize on.50,000 will
tax my spare computer which I like to use for modest CGOS tests.
If it is agreed, I will start a 25k test.My prediction is that this
will finish around 1600 ELO on CGOS.
OK, I added F
Hi Christoph,
Thanks for replying.
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Feb 15, 2008, at 3:29 AM, Tim Foden wrote:
In your "pure MC program", do you use UCB1 to choose the next move to
search at the root? If not, what algorithm are you using? I'm
currently using UCB1 for my test in Fluke
Hi Christoph,
I'm currently trying to pretty much replicate this test with my own bot Fluke.
It's more of a confidence test than anything else. I'd like to be sure that
I've got AMAF implemented correctly (if there is any such thing :) ).
myCtest-10k
seems to gain about 420 elo from adding AMA
