Le vendredi 29 décembre 2006 10:58, Aloril a écrit : > On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 11:53 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > > Le jeudi 28 décembre 2006 03:34, Don Dailey a écrit : > > > I'm having an interesting problem - my hope is to set > > > a random legal move making player (who doesn't fill > > > 1 point eyes) at ELO zero. > > Hmm maybe i misunderstand. It seems to me that a random player > > cannot have a fixed rating (except -infinity) as it will lose > > all his games against non random player. > > First thing: Don Dailey is talking about equivalent player to > PythonBrown in 9x9 CGOS, not Random. Oh , this might change by 200 ELO ! Pythonbrown's rank depends mainly on the number of weak program between it and the anchor.
> > > Or if it is set at zero ELO all other non random bot will slowly > > drift toward +infinity. > > Actually given *enough* games "fully random including eye filling and > passing moves" will win against a pro player. The *enough* is the problem. Considering the sun will burn the earth in less than 10 billion year, it is statistically impossible that a random player will win a strong dan player before the earth disapear. Paraphrasing Linux coding style: "An infinite number of monkey typing in GNU Emacs, would never make a good go program" > I did find one game where > pseudorandom player (==Random at CGOS) wins against GNU Go on 5x5 board. > Haven't found one in 7x7 though. http://homepages.cwi.nl/~tromp/go/legal.html 5x5 is 414 billion possible games, 7x7 is 8.3 x 10^22 19x19 is 2 x 10^170 Dont waste your time looking for random win on 7X7, it will ~never happen. I won't discuss this topic anymore, it already happened 1 year ago at the beginning of cgos-9x9. Alain _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
