On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 13:34 -0500, Zach Wegner wrote: > > 7. In the case of moves with even scores a random selection is > made. > > I think maybe this should be something deterministic.
That of course is clearly a possibility. However I'm trying to approach this with a certain consistent methodology which is to specify the BEHAVIOR, not the implementation. I want complete freedom in how you implement the specified behavior. Also, if you chose a different generator, it would not be possible to prove it if it were a good one. Not unless we also got heavy handed about how it's initialized, and how you select moves with a random distribution. In short, I fear that we would be asking too much to build a bunch of clones that are completely deterministic. If you look at pseudo random number generators you will see there is this same implicit methodology, though not stated. The behavior specified is to "appear random" and test are designed to see how well this behavior is simulated. In some sense, people consider the best random number generators to be the ones that "fool" the Diehard tests. They fool these diehard tests into thinking they are really random. I want this to work that way. We will build tests and I don't care if you can find a way to fool the tests. However the tester will be designed to be difficult to fool and it will not present you with predictable positions. I don't care if you don't follow the spec 100% if you can fool the tests. If you can do this, you will probably have found something useful to all of us. This is not going to be a formal thing like the Computer Benchmarks Game is. We will just build a tester and publish the spec and you can do what you want with it. Maybe put entries on Sensei's page. - Don
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
