On 25 June 2012 04:13, Philippe Michel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, Joseph Heled wrote: > > On 24 June 2012 13:38, Joseph Heled <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> It is heart warming to see that the race net can be improved still :) >>> >>> The benchmark rates the new crashed net as stronger, which is great too, >>> but the new contact net is rated weaker in moves (0.0104453134853 vs >>> 0.0104996763558), stronger in cube actions. >>> >>> >> I take this back. After updating the contact benchmark to include all >> missing positions, the new net comes out ahead. The crashed benchmark need >> to be updated as well. >> > > By missing positions you mean the "n-out ..." line from the benchmark > ouput ? > > For the crashed benchmark I made what looked like an easy try to alleviate > this by rounding up the number of rolled-out alternatives to the next > multiple of 5 but I don't know if it made much of a difference. > > I did that because it looked right on general principles but I totally > missed the fact that it may matter to explain small progresses, or the lack > of them :-(. > > I suppose there is an easy way to find and add them from a verbose > benchmark output since you apparently did this quickly although there must > be hundreds of them. > Yes, perr has a --log option, whose output can be fed to sa -Joseph
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
