Quoting Ivan Dubois [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
I think there is a very easy and straigthforward solution to the
nakade/seki problem, here it is :
For moves that are self-atari on a group that contains MORE than
5 stones :
Both in the tree and the playouts, strictly forbid them
Don Dailey wrote:
Tim Foden wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
I suggest
exactly 25,000 play-outs that we should standardize on.50,000 will
tax my spare computer which I like to use for modest CGOS tests.
If it is agreed, I will start a 25k test.My prediction is that this
will finish
You are right, it is not a perfect solution. I find it attractive though
because it is very simple and I think it will work well on a lot of
situations.
Currently Zoe is losing a lot of games on cgos because it doesnt even know
about seki. At least it should be an improvement over what is done
If it is agreed, I will start a 25k test.My prediction is that this
will finish around 1600 ELO on CGOS.
Looks like it's currently around 1485, so I am 115 ELO off from my
prediction at the moment.
2 more doublings would probably get you to 1700 - perhaps I will test
this later,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
If it is agreed, I will start a 25k test.My prediction is that this
will finish around 1600 ELO on CGOS.
Looks like it's currently around 1485, so I am 115 ELO off from my
prediction at the moment.
2 more
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
If you look at the table, drdGeneric 10k is rated 1228 and 25k is
rating 1485 which is 257 ELO for doing 2.5 x more play-outs. If
this holds, I would expect 100,000 play-outs to give well over 1700
ELO. Of course there could
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:
So I have created this page:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?CGOSBasicUCTBots
and summed up what I could find in the thread about the various bots.
Please clarify if anything there is wrong / unknown, and add your bots
if they aren't there. I wanted to
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:25:04AM -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:
So I have created this page:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?CGOSBasicUCTBots
and summed up what I could find in the thread about the various bots.
Please clarify if anything there is wrong
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:31:19PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
I got kind of lost in the thread and lost track about which bots should
I actually compare myself to. ;-)
So I have created this page:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?CGOSBasicUCTBots
Good idea!
Would it make sense to have a
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Heikki Levanto wrote:
Would it make sense to have a similar page for pure MC programs (without
uct), so that we beginning developers could check that portion of our code
against known results?
I have two long-term CGOS programs:
myCtest-10k: 1011 ELO
myCtest-50k: 1343
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:01:57PM +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:31:19PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
I got kind of lost in the thread and lost track about which bots should
I actually compare myself to. ;-)
So I have created this page:
11 matches
Mail list logo
