About two weeks ago I took Pebbles offline for an extensive overhaul of its
board representation. At that time Valkyria 3.3.4 had a 9x9 CGOS rating of
roughly 2475.
When I looked today, I saw Valkyria 3.3.4 rated at roughly 2334, so I
wondered what was going on.
I found a contributing factor:
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 01:48:05PM -0600, Brian Sheppard wrote:
About two weeks ago I took Pebbles offline for an extensive overhaul of its
board representation. At that time Valkyria 3.3.4 had a 9x9 CGOS rating of
roughly 2475.
When I looked today, I saw Valkyria 3.3.4 rated at roughly
When I get more time to work on Valkyria again maybe I should look
closely at the games against Pachi...
-Magnus
Quoting Brian Sheppard sheppar...@aol.com:
About two weeks ago I took Pebbles offline for an extensive overhaul of its
board representation. At that time Valkyria 3.3.4 had a 9x9
One must be very careful about proclaiming wild transitivity issues. I'm
not saying it's not an issue, there is some going on with every program on
CGOS, but with less than 500 games between any two players you are going
to get error margins of +/- 30-50 ELO or something like that.
And CGOS
In any rating scheme, who you play can be as important as how well.
This is especially true for small groups.
Suddenly adding or dropping a strong player will certainly cause
all the other player's ratings to shift.
___
computer-go mailing list
One must be very careful about proclaiming wild transitivity issues. I'm
not saying it's not an issue, there is some going on with every program on
CGOS, but with less than 500 games between any two players you are going
to get error margins of +/- 30-50 ELO or something like that.
Actually we
Many Faces also had more trouble against pachi than you would expect from
its rating. Perhaps Pachi is generally stronger, but throws away some
percentage of games (even against weak players) because of some bug.
David
-Original Message-
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org
