Hi! On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 04:09:31PM -0600, Brian Sheppard wrote: > >By now, I should probably find better reference opponent than > >gnugo... I wonder if to pick fuego or mogo... ;-) Strength is probably > >not _as_ important as the variety of techniques used in order to avoid > >selective blindness (that's why I don't like tuning by self-play), > >does anyone have a tip? Or do higher gnugo levels make much strength > >difference? > > Pebbles doesn't follow the norms, but I am very happy with my solution: just > play constantly on CGOS. > > CGOS provides a range of opponents of different styles, including non-MCTS > opponents that use neural networks or alpha-beta. You can play 140 games per > day, which is plenty.
I agree CGOS is great, and you prompted me to run my bot there again ;-) - I wonder how much ELO it will get. But CGOS is for a different purpose I think - finding out where your bot stands in the long term; what I'm using my gnugo testing for is quickly assessing value of various minor changes and many variants. Getting pretty reliable estimate (400 games) takes just about 3-5 hours; getting that on CGOS would take few days, which is a lot less convenient. I don't even almost ever look at the test games with gnugo, just the overall percentage is all I care about. > Fifth, Pebbles saves two positions from every loss: the last position in > which it thought it was winning (eval of the selected move >= 50%), and the > position in which it thought it had the greatest advantage. > > Pebbles regularly (~1 or 2 games per day) loses games where it thinks it > will win >90% of the time. I always learn something by analyzing those > games. This is pretty interesting idea! -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis A lot of people have my books on their bookshelves. That's the problem, they need to read them. -- Don Knuth _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/