The mini study so far ... games against gnugo-3.7.11
PLAYERTIME/GME RATING GAMES WIN%
--- - ---
Mogo_01 0.10 1002.4189 0.53 Mogo at 64 play-outs
Mogo_02 0.14 1197.0156 2.56 Mogo at 128 play-outs
Mog
Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Rémi,
>
>After sending this last message to the list I thought of a couple of things.
>Just a few
>weeks ago I lowered the default rating about 400 ELO.The default rating is
>the initial
>rating you receive by default.
Although I don't know your idea be
Rémi,
After sending this last message to the list I thought of a couple of things.
Just a few weeks ago I lowered the default rating about 400 ELO.The default
rating is the initial rating you receive by default.
I didn't believe this would be a problem because if you play someone who h
Rémi Coulom wrote:
> I believe the main problem is that the Elo-rating model is wrong for
> bots. The phenomenon with Mogo is probably the same as Crazy Stone: if
> there are enough strong MC bots playing to shield the top MC programs
> from playing against GNU, then they'll get a high rating bec
I believe the main problem is that the Elo-rating model is wrong for
bots. The phenomenon with Mogo is probably the same as Crazy Stone: if
there are enough strong MC bots playing to shield the top MC programs
from playing against GNU, then they'll get a high rating because they
are efficient a
Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>But FatMan is still 1800!I wonder if FatMan improved causing the
>deflation? :-)
FatMan-1 is running as was :).
GNU Go's, gnugo-3.7.10-l10F and gnugo-3.7.11-l10F, are also getting
lower, though I forgot to mention. They were close to 1800 but now
1739 an
Don Dailey wrote:
>But FatMan is still 1800!I wonder if FatMan improved causing the
>deflation? :-)
Don, why don't you use MoGo as the second anchor?
--
Yamato
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mail
Oh, how silly I am not understanding Don's humor :-(
I think it's since cgos's rating system depends on the opponents you
played with and the order of opponents you played with.
On 2/3/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't FatMan an anchor and has a fixed 1800 rating?
>
> On 2/3
Isn't FatMan an anchor and has a fixed 1800 rating?
On 2/3/08, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But FatMan is still 1800!I wonder if FatMan improved causing the
> deflation? :-)
>
> - Don
>
>
> Hideki Kato wrote:
> > Hmm, mogo-pr-1core is also getting lower rating these days. It had
>
But FatMan is still 1800!I wonder if FatMan improved causing the
deflation? :-)
- Don
Hideki Kato wrote:
> Hmm, mogo-pr-1core is also getting lower rating these days. It had
> been over 2500, 2525 at max I remember, but is 2476 today.
>
> -Hideki
>
> Yamato: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Gi
Hmm, mogo-pr-1core is also getting lower rating these days. It had
been over 2500, 2525 at max I remember, but is 2476 today.
-Hideki
Yamato: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>I'm not sure what to think about the following:
>>
>>Leela 0.3.0 vs Leela 0.3.7, 455 game match
>>177 v
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>I'm not sure what to think about the following:
>
>Leela 0.3.0 vs Leela 0.3.7, 455 game match
>177 vs 278 => +78 ELO points for Leela 0.3.7
>
>CGOS rating
>
>Leela_0.3.0_1CPU 2335
>Leela_0.3.7_2CPU 2333
>
>Hmm..but also
>
>Zen-0.9 2386
>Zen-1.0 2385
I'm not sure what to think about the following:
Leela 0.3.0 vs Leela 0.3.7, 455 game match
177 vs 278 => +78 ELO points for Leela 0.3.7
CGOS rating
Leela_0.3.0_1CPU 2335
Leela_0.3.7_2CPU 2333
Hmm..but also
Zen-0.9 2386
Zen-1.0 2385
or more:
Uct-200801122348
Uct-200801132334
13 matches
Mail list logo
