With all those nets I get confused. Which are exactly the "old" in "new" (in a nngnu ready format too), and more important, where can I download them now.
In my gnubg directory I see $ md5sum gnubg.weights* d182a162a011aac839bc48879c349b14 gnubg.weights bb76fbaa6256f79dacc17749045d38ee gnubg.weights.newold 54d68d84633443825ff8c346b0283d55 gnubg.weights.old and various nngnubg.weights around :) -Joseph On 18 March 2013 03:57, Philippe Michel <philippe.mich...@sfr.fr> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Mar 2013, Neural Gnat wrote: > > I've just re-analysed a 1000-game money session that I did about a week >> ago with 2012's World Class versus Casual. This new test version has found >> 1839 doubtful moves, 304 bad moves and 247 very bad moves, knocking the >> mainstream version down from Supernatural to World Class (-4.0). >> > > This is a surprisingly large difference. I would expect the new version to > be better by about 1 (gnubg style error rate) or 0.5 (Snowie ER / XG PR). > > On the other hand, if old has, say, an error rate of 4 vs. perfect play > and new has 3 due to different mistakes, they may well be 4 away from each > other. > > > The question is, how do you determine which of those opinions are >> correct? Dare I mention XG? ;o) >> > > Roll out the disagreements. All of them would take time, of course, but > only a few games' worth or the largest ones should give some idea of what > is happening. Analysing these with XGR++ instead could be a reasonable > shortcut and allow to look at more of them in a given time. > > > Another question is, how do I get these two versions playing each other? >> I tried the "socket" players a few years ago but, with no instructions, no >> result and no feedback from GnuBg, I soon gave up. >> > > I don't know if the file is shipped in gnubg's Windows installation, but > the comments a the start of matchseries.py here should help : > http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/**viewvc/gnubg/gnubg/scripts/<http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/gnubg/gnubg/scripts/> > > But don't expect to play the two versions against each other and get > anything better than an anecdotal gross result. You would need a session > *much* longer than 1000 games for a statistically significant result, and > stock gnubg isn't suited to this. It keeps the whole session in memory and > would likely get slower and slower and crash at some point. > > You could still analyse the short session with XG at the highest level of > luck analysis you can afford and get a useful variance-reduced result by a > neutral third party. > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > Bug-gnubg@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/**listinfo/bug-gnubg<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg> >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list Bug-gnubg@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
