Is your reference compiled java version on cgos? I'd like to cut back Many Faces to your spec and see how it does. Maybe find some bugs.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey > Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 6:26 AM > To: computer-go > Subject: [computer-go] reference bots testing. > > I have two versions of the reference bot. A C and a Java version. > > I am doing a conformance self-test on my java and C versions and they > do > not agree. The simple stats seem to agree but they play at different > strengths when self-testing with actual games. The C version is > playing about 40 ELO weaker and it's less and less likely to be > statistical noise. > > So I found a minor bug, fixed it, and run the tests again and still > find an error, but it looks to be around 25 ELO after a few thousand > games. > There are enough games that this bias looks consistent. > > The weaker C version, uses the Mersenne Twister which I have some > confidence in, so I really doubt the RNG is a factor here since the C > program probably has the superior RNG. I am also careful that I > select > numbers in a uniformly random way - a lot of people do this wrong > because stuff like (rng() % N) doesn't do what people think it does. > > So I have a little mystery here. The program is pretty straightforward > and simple, so it proves something that the chess people know, that > the strength of your program is heavily dependent on how many bugs you > have and that straightforward bug-free programs tend to be pretty > strong. It has been said that the secret of Fruit, a very strong chess > program is mostly that it is bug-free, there is nothing spectacular > about how it > was written other than this. I don't know to what extent that is true > for fruit, it's just something that has been spread around, but I > know that it tends to be true for me and my software. > > Even if I find the bug(s) and fix it, I am still comparing two of my > own implementations. So it would be good if someone else would send > me > their "conforming" version (for linux preferably, although I can > usually run exe files) and of course my java implementation is freely > available. > > I could also send a compiled java version (that does check out against > the JIT version), a binary for 64 bit linux. That version is actually > faster than the latest IBM java JIT by a good little bit and it has a > smaller memory footprint, faster startup time, etc. It almost makes > Java a practical language. > > - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
