Are you looking at the games actually played out by the simulations?
One debugging technique I sometimes find useful is to take a position which is clearly won for one side and look at those simulations that nethertheless are lost. Sometimes one might also look at the games where a really bad move was played, often near the end in close games. -Magnus Quoting Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I agree. I'm actually quite shocked at just how serious. I have unit tests for a lot of the core logic (that run at start up, always ensuring accuracy), and have changed a lot of other logic to conform to what others have done... Those changes even tripped various unit tests and asserts (which then had to change). Before doing all this AMAF testing, I would have sworn that I had a reasonable implementation... Maybe not the best one, but certainly reasonable. Now I know that it's not the case. I think I've pretty much ruled problems with the eye rule, suicide handling (I don't allow it), selection of random empty legal non-eye-filling moves, how the end of the game is detected, and how games are scored. I'm starting to run out of ideas. I'm thinking of doing a million random numbers and seeing if they look uniform, or going back to scour the core logic (that passes all the unit tests).
-- Magnus Persson Berlin, Germany _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
