Author: Mark Taylor
Date: 08:49:24 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2000 at 22:55:51, Michael Neish wrote: Each "game" was a single random "result" - I think what you should have done is make each *move* a random result. This would have evened out the anomalies by having a much larger no of events. Of course, you would then have had the problem of deciding how each simulated move contributed to the result of the game - you might decide that to "lose" a simulated game a player had to make 3 (or some other arbitrary number of) bad moves. You could also make things even more accurate by having the random number indicate how "bad" the move was, then add to total "badness" of the moves played for each player, with the game being won when this exceeded a certain value. I think what I'n trying to say here, is that your model has over-simplified to the point where it is no longer valid. Mark.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.