We haven't seen strong statistical evidence for intransitivity in
computer go, but I don't think anyone has looked very hard yet.
It seems like it probably exists to some degree - It would be
interesting to study this.
- Don
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've mentioned this before, bu
I've mentioned this before, but hopefully not recently enough to make this
annoying. Computer go people and corewars people overlap somewhat.
Intransitivity is extremely important for corewars, making?corewars a good
domain to study it.
Here is an example of a nice graphical way to visualize in
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008 11:00 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The idea of a non one dimension rating model is interesting. If you
>> decide to pursue this I can give you the CGOS data in a compact format,
>> 1 line per result.
>>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm not sur
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 11:00 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The idea of a non one dimension rating model is interesting. If you
decide to pursue this I can give you the CGOS data in a compact format,
1 line per result.
Hi all,
I'm not sure I get the whole pi
you can use a multi-d ranking system to predict
the outcome of a contest between two players.
this is good for handicapping, for instance.
this will not necessarily create a linear ordering
of the players, as you've mentioned, but it is still
quite useful, and radically more efficient and useful
On Jan 6, 2008 11:00 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The idea of a non one dimension rating model is interesting. If you
> decide to pursue this I can give you the CGOS data in a compact format,
> 1 line per result.
Hi all,
I'm not sure I get the whole picture regarding multi-dimensi
Rémi,
The idea of a non one dimension rating model is interesting. If you
decide to pursue this I can give you the CGOS data in a compact format,
1 line per result.
I thought of this idea too, but I didn't try to produce a model.It
would be easier to test and build such a model however if
My guess is that this is a combination of some intransitivity and low
sample size. 100 games isn't very much data in the CS vs MFGO.
As far as intransivity, perhaps Crazy Stone has some particular
strength that works very well against a weakness in MFGO. The
values do not make a grea
I've only done a little testing against gnugo, in the last two weeks, and no
tuning. I just use it as a regression test to make sure I didnt break
something.
David
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rémi Coulom
> Sent: Su
steve uurtamo wrote:
did you optimize parameters in MFGO by playing against
gnugo?
that'd do it.
s.
Well, I don't know about David, but I do _all_ my testing and optimizing
against GNU.
Rémi
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.or
David Fotland wrote:
The styles of CS (CS-9-17-10k-1CPU), MFGO (mfgo12exp-15), and GNUGO
(gnugo3.7.10_10) are different, and it's generating some odd results.
Many Faces beats GnuGo 70%. There are not many games, but this is
consistent with over 100 test games I've run.
CS beats GnuGo 55%. Ove
did you optimize parameters in MFGO by playing against
gnugo?
that'd do it.
s.
- Original Message
From: David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go
Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2008 12:52:10 PM
Subject: [computer-go] Odd results on 19x19
The styles of CS (CS-9-17-10k-1CPU), MFGO (
The styles of CS (CS-9-17-10k-1CPU), MFGO (mfgo12exp-15), and GNUGO
(gnugo3.7.10_10) are different, and it's generating some odd results.
Many Faces beats GnuGo 70%. There are not many games, but this is
consistent with over 100 test games I've run.
CS beats GnuGo 55%. Over 100 games played.
CS
13 matches
Mail list logo
