adjustments with borderline cases
If your disadvantage is strictly between 11.5 and 12.5%, look at
factors that are not measured by the count (wastage, crossovers, gaps
etc.) If consideration of these factors benefits you, take. If the consideration benefits your opponent, drop. If the factors don't
accumulate to anyone's advantage, use the original 12%.
Now if we apply your argument to my Isight method, at what ADDITIONAL features would you propose to look? Looking at EXISTING features again
is unlikely to help, otherwise the optimizer would have simply given a different weight factor for an existing feature.
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
In this game, one of the sides had a large stack on on the 6, another large stack on the 4 and a single checker on the 5. Assuming theSounds a bit like the "surface criterion" from
other side had a smooth position, the other side is doing better than Isight thinks, because Isight doesn't know that there's likely to be
an ugly gap on the 5, which the present Isight count is ignoring.
https://www.bkgm.com/articles/GOL/Dec00/pipples.htm
I like this concept, which is elegant and intuitive, but I think it
needs further simplification. Over the years since the Isight method has been published, I have received a couple of e-mail suggestions for improvements (presumably not quantified, but based on gut feeling), all
of them too complicated for my taste. At least for me, my method neatly occupies the sweet spot between accuracy and effort, which should be no surprise, because I optimized on both.
In Seret's there is also a "zero criterion", which also fits your
example from above.
Maybe I will play around a bit, but maybe I should wait a bit more:
After all, your feedback is very valuable and you got "hooked" to my
method just recently. So I am hoping for more to come. (-:
Best regards
Axel
In this game, one of the sides had a large stack on on the 6, another
large stack on the 4 and a single checker on the 5. Assuming the
other side had a smooth position, the other side is doing better than
Isight thinks, because Isight doesn't know that there's likely to be
an ugly gap on the 5, which the present Isight count is ignoring.
In these exact-border positions, does Isight score much better than 50%?
For example, if we called these positions, "point of first drop"
instead of "point of last take", would the algo perform worse? I'd
kind of be surprised if so, to any significant degree.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 292 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 203:50:15 |
Calls: | 6,617 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,168 |
Messages: | 5,316,475 |