It could very well reach 3.0 too fast - I didn't make any attempt to tune this and it's my own system that eventually just becomes a k=3 incrementally rated ELO system.
However, the best thing to do is to ignore that page and go the "Bayes Rated" link which is updated every day. This is the total performance rating over all time of any player on CGOS. Everything is rated together, even if you have only played 1 or 2 games but I do not display players with less than 20 games. The downside of that page is that if your program improves over time and you don't change it's identity, then your rating will not reflect it's most recent ability although it will converge towards the correct rating as long as you continue to play. - Don On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:25 -0200, Mark Boon wrote: > I'm not so knowledgeable about the ELO system and had a few questions > about how it's used by the CGOS server. > > Firstly, on the CGOS server page there's an explanation of how it > works with a table of expected winning percentages vs. difference in > ELO ratings: > > http://cgos.boardspace.net/ (towards the bottom) > > This table is rather different from another table I found on the > GoBase page about the ELO rating system: > > http://gobase.org/studying/articles/elo/ > > Is there a reason why they are so different? > > Secondly, I have let my MCTS reference implementation (with a few > modifications) play on CGOS with different numbers of playouts. What > I'm noticing is that initially the rating changes rapidly, slowing > down over time. This is explained on the CGOS page that it uses a K- > factor that slowly goes down to 3.0 over 200-300 games. What I tend to > see however is that the rating after some 200 games is very much > determined by how well it did early on. After these 200-300 games I > still see a drift towards its actual rating (I assume) for a very long > time afterwards. > > Since one of the purposes of CGOS is for a large part so that people > can verify the strength of their program against others, it's > desirable to converge on the actual rating as fast as possible. What > I'm seeing suggest that maybe the K-factor reaches 3.0 too fast. Is > that a reasonable conclusion? I'd be interested to hear opinions about > that. > > Mark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
