Hi!
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 04:09:31PM -0600, Brian Sheppard wrote:
> >By now, I should probably find better reference opponent than
> >gnugo... I wonder if to pick fuego or mogo... ;-) Strength is probably
> >not _as_ important as the variety of techniques used in order to avoid
> >selective blindness (that's why I don't like tuning by self-play),
> >does anyone have a tip? Or do higher gnugo levels make much strength
> >difference?
>
> Pebbles doesn't follow the norms, but I am very happy with my solution: just
> play constantly on CGOS.
>
> CGOS provides a range of opponents of different styles, including non-MCTS
> opponents that use neural networks or alpha-beta. You can play 140 games per
> day, which is plenty.
I agree CGOS is great, and you prompted me to run my bot there again
;-) - I wonder how much ELO it will get.
But CGOS is for a different purpose I think - finding out where your
bot stands in the long term; what I'm using my gnugo testing for is
quickly assessing value of various minor changes and many variants.
Getting pretty reliable estimate (400 games) takes just about 3-5 hours;
getting that on CGOS would take few days, which is a lot less
convenient. I don't even almost ever look at the test games with gnugo,
just the overall percentage is all I care about.
> Fifth, Pebbles saves two positions from every loss: the last position in
> which it thought it was winning (eval of the selected move >= 50%), and the
> position in which it thought it had the greatest advantage.
>
> Pebbles regularly (~1 or 2 games per day) loses games where it thinks it
> will win >90% of the time. I always learn something by analyzing those
> games.
This is pretty interesting idea!
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
A lot of people have my books on their bookshelves.
That's the problem, they need to read them. -- Don Knuth
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
