| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ed Guest
|
Post subject: Re: Pro Deo 1.5 Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:26 pm |
|
|
| CRoberson wrote: |
Hi Ed,
This sounds great. I've put quite a bit of thought into this and had
several discussions with a colleague who is into Bayesian trees.
Effectively, this is a Bayesian tree. My debate is: while using simple
counting statistics works, it may not be the most effective.
I believe the quality of the effort needs to be reflected -- more
bonus for more important wins and more penalty for bigger losses.
With that in mind, why not give more penalty for a loss/draw against a
weaker opponent and more bonus for a win/draw against a stronger
opponent. The values should be scaled evenly across the range of
strong vs weaker.
Charles |
Hi Charles,
Interesting thoughts indeed. Maybe I should do some experiments building the EOC chess tree based on the opponent's elo rating.
And I thought the project was finished....
Ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
| Subject |
Author |
Date/Time |
Pro Deo 1.5 |
ed |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:11 am |
Re: Pro Deo 1.5 |
Tony |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:47 am |
Re: Pro Deo 1.5 |
ed |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:00 am |
Re: Pro Deo 1.5 |
Mark Lefler |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:11 pm |
Re: Pro Deo 1.5 |
Tony |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:21 pm |
Re: Pro Deo 1.5 |
ed |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:05 pm |
Re: Pro Deo 1.5 |
Charles Roberson |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:55 pm |
Re: Pro Deo 1.5 |
ed |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:26 pm |
Re: Pro Deo 1.5 |
Uri Blass |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:04 pm |
Re: Pro Deo 1.5 |
ed |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:08 pm |
Re: Pro Deo 1.5 |
Tony Thomas |
Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:01 pm |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|