After the matches were played, did you do a ³clear analysis/match or session² before analyzing?
On 16/09/09 8:22 AM, "Bern Hamilton" <[email protected]> wrote: > I let two gnubg players play each other in a long money session and also in a > few 64 point matches. Both played with 0-ply with 0.040 noise, with one having > deterministic noise and the other non-deterministic. > > Then, using 0-ply 0.040 deterministic noise analysis settings, I analyzed all > the moves and cube decisions. I expected the player with deterministic noise > to have 0 error rating in both, chequer and cube play, and the one with > non-deterministic noise, some chequer and cube errors. > > To my surprise, both had perfect chequer play and both had errors in cube > decisions. > > So, two questions: > > Why didn't the non-deterministic player produce errors in chequer play? > Why did the deterministic player produce errors in cube play? > > Maybe I'm not understanding what the random noise is intended to achieve. > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
