Re: computer-go: Results on self play vs recorded games

[Marco Scheurer <marco@xxxxxxxx>]

On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 12:07 PM, Nicol N. Schraudolph wrote:

> > > Interesting results, I'm curious, how good are the recorded games?
> > >  Thinks like average rank of say the weakest 10% of the players would
> > > be interesting. (I assume these were human players, right?).
> > I got them from Nici Schraudolph, who would have to make any such
> > comments.
> The games were not selected according to player strength, so you get
> whatever IGS (the source) had to offer.  The selection criteria were 
> 9x9,
> no handicap, and recorded territory.  To select only games between good
> players you'd need a larger pool of games, which means going to 19x19 
> and
> "bootstrapping" final territory, e.g. via gnugo as suggested here.
>
> I am attaching a histogram of player strength for the games in 
> question,
> translating IGS ratings as NR = 0, 31k = 1, 30k = 2, ... 1k = 31, 1d =
> 32, ... 9d = 40, 1p = 41, ... 9p = 49.
I'm not sure you can assume that NR are weak players. I remember 
reading a comment by Tweet that many NR players on IGS were pro.


Marco Scheurer
Sen:te, Lausanne, Switzerland    http://www.sente.ch