[computer-go] UCT formula testing

[Jason House]

I found the detailed results page tough to read. Here's a quick key on 
how to read it. Maybe it's overkill.

For those trying to read the results... Taking the last line from test 1,
"explore_rate = 1 - ego_base wins 62.7 + 3.8 % games (158 ames)"

The first part "explore_rate = 1 - ego_base" is a description of the 
white player.
"explore_rate = 1" is a description of the variable changing in the 
experiment
"-" is a separator, not part of an equation
"ego_base" is the program used to play white (sometimes omitted)
The second part "wins 62.7 + 3.8 % games" is a win (for white) of 62.7% 
of the time (with a confidence of +/- 3.8%)
The last part is obvious "(158 ames)". The number of games played to 
come to that conclusion (158)

I don't know what confidence level is used (e.g. 95%), but I bet some 
simple match could figure it out.

Łukasz Lew wrote:
> My student - Filip Gruszczynski, made extensive testing of alternative
> formulas for UCT.
> Over 30 000 games; ~10 different algorithms with various constants
> (including BAST).
>
> http://students.mimuw.edu.pl/~fg219435/Go/
>
>> From the article:
> "It seems, that the more simple approach we take, the better. EGO_SQRT
> seems to be the best when compared with other ego programs, though
> EGO_BAST seems to be a bit more effective against GnuGo - possibly
> with better constants it could win even more."
>
> -- 
>
> Taking the opportunity, I also would like to announce that development
> of libego will be stopped at least for 4 months (I'm on 3 month
> internship + vacations :] ).
>
> Best Regards,
> Lukasz Lew
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>