Ok, I misunderstood his testing procedure. What he is doing is far more scientific than what I thought he was doing.
There has got to be something better than this. What we need is a way to make the playouts more meaningful but not by artificially reducing our actual objective which is to win. For the high handicap games, shouldn't the goal be to maximize the score? Instead of adjusting komi why not just change the goal to win as much of the board as possible? This would be far more honest and reliable I would think and the program would not be forced to constantly waste effort on constantly changing goals. - Don On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brian Sheppard <sheppar...@aol.com> wrote: > >The small samples is probably the least of the problems with this. Do > you > >actually believe that you can play games against it and not be subjective > in > >your observations or how you play against it? > > These are computer-vs-computer games. Ingo is manually transferring moves > between two computer opponents. > > The result does support Ingo's belief that dynamic Komi will help programs > play high handicap games. Due to small sample size it isn't very strong > evidence. But maybe it is enough to induce a programmer who actually plays > in such games to create a more exhaustive test. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
