[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Judging programs from one example and random play
Magnus Persson wrote:
>
>[skip ..]
> As an example I once made a program that played completely randomly,
> except that it did not fill in "solid eyes". I discovered that if you
> gave that program a free handicap about 100-120 stones it actually
> became a quite addictive variant of go. The nice thing with a random
> opponent is that you can never trick it or learn some systematic
> weakness. And after playing some game I got the feeling that at least
> once in every game, the random player played at that spot where I
> would play myself if I were black - almost as the computer had read
> my mind.
> [skip ..]
> Another interesting thought about a random player (about 100 kyu) is
> that it is possible to make programs that play even worse, even if
> you disallow "filling in of solid eyes".
Whow ! if a random player is 100 Kyu and you played with it at 120 stones, this
means you are 20 Dan ! Very impressive ;-). For me, I still can be in trouble
with a random player at 70 stones...
I'm really wondering about the real strength of a random player : it's amazing
how, by just adding a few niceties to a random program, such as avoiding
throwing stones into her own territories, you greatly improve her strenght. Of
course (?), subsequent improvements become much harder to implement...
______________________
/ Let java be with me !\ \\\|///
\______________________/ O \\ ^ ^ //
o o ( @ @ )
+--------------------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo----+
| Serge Boisse |
| SERVICE TECHNIQUE DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE (STNA) |
| PHIDIAS project, http://www.stna.dgac.fr/phidias |
| tel: (33)562 14 5731 |
| mailto:boisse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| homepage: http://www.mygale.org/~boisse |
+-----------------------------------------------Oooo----+
oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)