At the moment, Pebbles is creating a huge drift. Brian - CGOS requires
us to use new names on the server each time we change our bots. It
computes the strength using all games (heavilly biased with the
results of the first 100 games)
Pebbles is probably closer to 2000 ELO than 1000 ELO
From: Jason House jason.james.ho...@gmail.com
CGOS requires us to use new names on the server each time we change our bots.
It computes the strength using all games (heavilly biased with the results of
the first 100 games)
Hypothetically speaking, if a
it would slowly grow in (measured) strength over time.
s.
2009/4/20 terry mcintyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com:
From: Jason House jason.james.ho...@gmail.com
CGOS requires us to use new names on the server each time we change our
bots. It computes the strength
The best way to get an accurate picture is to ignore the main page and go to
the Latest Bayeselo which does a full performance rating on all games
every played on CGOS. There will be no bias and you have error bars.
The main page just tracks ratings incrementally and is not a very good
The Bayeselo page would not deal well with it, since it assumes each player
is a unique individual with a fixed playing strength. In this case, the
incrementally rated main page would do a better job.
What I'm thinking about doing is to measure the ratings of active players
compared to the
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, ?ukasz Lew wrote:
Is there a rating drift? I remember that pure UCT no RAVE with 100k
playouts got over 1700 elo.
That seems a little high. My 50k-pure-UCT searcher is around
1580 for a long time.
Christoph
___
computer-go
Rated: 1713 as of 2007-12-29 09:28:46
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/libEGO-v0.115-100k.html
I am running exactly the same binary file to check it recent rating.
ego-v0.115-100k
Lukasz
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 20:16, Christoph Birk b...@ociw.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, ?ukasz Lew
That should be interesting.
So we have
1. ego-v0.115-100k
2. libEGO-v0.115-100k
Is that correct? We can watch it's bayelo rating as well as it's
incremental rating.
- Don
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Łukasz Lew lukasz@gmail.com wrote:
Rated: 1713 as of 2007-12-29 09:28:46
Earlier today, I looked up my identical 50k RAVE bots and found
ratings of 1827 (old) and 1468 (new).
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com wrote:
That should be interesting.
So we have
1. ego-v0.115-100k
2. libEGO-v0.115-100k
Is that
Jason,
This means nothing - can you give us more details? What did the error bars
look like? Which hardware were each run on? etc.
- Don
2009/4/20 Jason House jason.james.ho...@gmail.com
Earlier today, I looked up my identical 50k RAVE bots and found ratings of
1827 (old) and 1468
that is correct.
2009/4/20 Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com:
That should be interesting.
So we have
1. ego-v0.115-100k
2. libEGO-v0.115-100k
Is that correct? We can watch it's bayelo rating as well as it's
incremental rating.
- Don
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Łukasz
hb-797-RAVE-50k
1827 -181 +142
hb797-50k
1477 -88 +84
Identical hardware. AMD64x2 with one search thread and no pondering.
The error bars don't overlap, but they come close. I'm rarely patient
enough to wait for 500 games to get +/-50 ELO.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2009, at 4:43 PM,
Hardware might be not important for fixed number of playouts.
Can you give us logins?
2009/4/20 Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com:
Jason,
This means nothing - can you give us more details? What did the error bars
look like? Which hardware were each run on? etc.
- Don
2009/4/20 Jason
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, ?ukasz Lew wrote:
Is there a rating drift? I remember that pure UCT no RAVE with 100k
playouts got over 1700 elo.
There is no 'anchor' (FatMan-1 ?) runnig on CGOS-9x9 for at
least 36 hours. That could create a drift.
Christoph
At the moment, Pebbles is creating a huge drift. Brian - CGOS requires us to
use
new names on the server each time we change our bots. It computes the strength
using all games (heavilly biased with the results of the first 100 games)?
This is basically my first working version. Its rating
On Apr 20, 2009, at 6:11 PM, sheppar...@aol.com wrote:
At the moment, Pebbles is creating a huge drift. Brian - CGOS
requires us to use
new names on the server each time we change our bots. It computes
the strength
using all games (heavilly biased with the results of the first 100
games)
I recall reading about an Elo system that had better adaptation to players
whose
rating changes. It was called Glicko-2. Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system
This would be a very poor rating system for CGOS. He basically recommends
giving much higher K factors
I got Libego compiled to a Windows DLL using Visual Studio and was able to call it, but I was only getting around 5k pps on my Core2. So I wanted to try
another compiler. Has anyone used the Digital Mars C++ compiler? Or is there another compiler I should try?
Just started.
Hideki
Christoph Birk: pine.lnx.4.64.0904201451410.16...@andromeda.ociw.edu:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, ?ukasz Lew wrote:
Is there a rating drift? I remember that pure UCT no RAVE with 100k
playouts got over 1700 elo.
There is no 'anchor' (FatMan-1 ?) runnig on CGOS-9x9 for at
least
From my expirience on windows, the best results I had with Intel C++ compiler
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-c-compiler-professional-edition-for-windows-evaluation/
It had around 70%-90% of g++.
Lukasz
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 03:18, Michael Williams
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
20 matches
Mail list logo
