-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
steve uurtamo wrote: >> Strangely enough, it now appears that hb-amaf-1k-v2 is significantly >> stronger than genAnchor-1k, defeating it 9 out of 9 times. I still have >> to wonder what the cause of the strength difference is. > > now is the time to just let it run for a few weeks and check on the > stats later. I perceive that you are prophet. The gap between the two programs are very small now, just 33 ELO. There is very little empirical evidence of a strength advantage. But I admit that hb-amaf-1k-v2 hit the ground running! I would say now that our implementations are very similar. - - Don -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHAR+aDsOllbwnSikRAtb+AKDO3nSNrW00Ff643M8fL3EDDNI68gCbBa1q 51dtYzX0xrCoDHNLyfZThVc= =3gTc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
