| |
BGonline.org Forums
Dear Mr. Depreli
Posted By: Christian Sorensen In Response To: New GNU Strength Some More Data (Michael Depreli)
Date: Thursday, 11 April 2013, at 10:43 p.m.
It's impossble to check bots by comparing error-rates, i think.
I have seen some of your studies and i think some of your conclusions are wrong. In the Michael Depreli study from 2012, which is posted on http://www.extremegammon.com/studies.aspx . There is no way that GNU and XG can be compared by speed and strength. The neural networks that are used to create the bots are different so they will get a different output. So analysing GNU and XG, by making a rollout will always favor XG in the end because they have the same neuralnet. they will have the same errors or imperfections and will favor eachother, while GNU is screaming in the background that they are wrong. So actually the results of the studies are complete rubbish.
An example: My friend and i are having a problem, he wants to take the bus and i want to take the train. Let's presume that i am XG and he is GNU. So now I dissagree with my friend.
Well if i where fixing this problem based on your study, i would only have to analyse deeper what the problem is. And i would find my own best solution. Damn this is real science!! His opion would be left out... Would this always lead to the best result? NO!
The realistic solution in the bus problem is to check the differences of opion. Because XG and GNU don't have the same opion, so why only check XG's opion?? letting the other person/bot out is a crime to modern research.
The only way to check which bot is stronger is to let them play against eachother, and let those bots use the same time of processing power. It may take a while and more than a I7 core, but the results will be fair. We would only have to check the win-rate of the bots, it will take a LOT of matches but it will be indepent. Not only one-sided "study".
I really don't know which bot is best. but what i do know is that there needs to be done real research into which bot is best. Assuming that XG is the best isn't enough, there should be proof, real proof.
- Just a nice quote: Making assumptions is something we all do in many areas of our lives. An assumption is “something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.” In other words, it is belief without proof.
I think the whole bg community just has assumed that XG is the best, eventhough we don't know if it is true. Maybe it is time for some scepticism in the bg community. If we all just assumed everything we heard and saw the world would never make any progress at all. I have always been sceptic about believing bots. An example is the Horizon-effect. (an old post from me)
Well enough for all the world problems, we are only talking about bg :). Hwo agrees that there needs to be done new and better research?
Sorry for my crappy english, there might be some errors.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.