blockout.net

As we reach a new page on this post :s_wink: you might missed
my last message concerning the new source. If you haven\'t
read it, just go to the previous page, last message.<br><br>Post edited by: jlp_38, at: 2008/02/18 21:42

Congratulations to gumby for the 2nd score in 3x3x18 EXTENDED :s_bravo:

Only few blocks missing :s_wink:

It starts to be really hard to enter the top 3 !

Ok this is quite convincing. The method doesn\'t work. I do apologise for all the time you spend on this flawed idea! Thank you so much for trying anyway. Thank you, for your ideas :) I prefere 100 times to try something that does not work as we expect rather than trying nothing. Now you might wond...

I uploaded a new source to sf. I simplified a bit the AI code so it should be a bit easier to understand and to modify. You can define the symbol DEPTH_STATS in the page (Properties->C++->Preprocessor). It will create a file fDepth.txt in the working directory containing the stats you ask. I also re...

I made a test on 10 million blocks and result are not really convincing. Results for both eval are comparable. The only thing I can tell is that with the original Lieven\'s eval, I had to make 3 games before reaching 10 million blocks and only 1 test with the new eval. I think to get proper results ...

You\'re welcome :)

Yes, if you BPM is high you will get much more \"drop points\".
But it also depends on the starting level.

I\'m wondering if it is a good idea to consider low row. Due to the edge strategy, it can choose to place a block \"against the wall\" which will raise the depth. I know that your eval also use this strategy, but the new smoothness and commonEdge tuning might accentuate this. So these para...

Result of your eval 1000000 blocks. Looks very similar ??? Limit of rows 4 seems ~0.12 -D 0 +D Hits 0 => 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 (4765) 1 => 0.01654 0.29241 0.69105 (225519) 2 => 0.31462 0.47161 0.21377 (481310) 3 => 0.51521 0.36794 0.11685 (233865) 4 => 0.52310 0.35868 0.11822 (65423) 5 => 0.51979 ...

An other attempt on 4000000 blocks. I\'m going to compare the 2 evals.... http://zelda38.free.fr/conv_speed_r4_2.png -D 0 +D Hits 0 => 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 (18233) 1 => 0.01638 0.29070 0.69292 (855626) 2 => 0.30591 0.48413 0.20996 (1895268) 3 => 0.53421 0.35197 0.11382 (894021) 4 => 0.55392 0.337...

Would be pretty quick (1000000 blocks on my comp takes about 1 min).

Are you sure ? Seems quite fast....
Did you count block or cube ?

A plot that can help... 1000000 blocks http://zelda38.free.fr/conv_speed_r4.png -D 0 +D Hits 0 => 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 (4431) 1 => 0.01573 0.29172 0.69255 (214309) 2 => 0.30542 0.48503 0.20955 (475039) 3 => 0.53722 0.35010 0.11268 (222585) 4 => 0.55501 0.33825 0.10674 (61357) 5 => 0.52704 0.35172...

Congratulations to Renato for his 3rd place in 3x3x6 BASIC :s_bravo:

Only few points missing for the 1st place ;)

Hi Lieven, Thanks for your idea :) The problem with params scanning is that we need a reliable estimation of the average. And it seems to be hard to get this value ! You have also to consider that the \"death zone\" optimization is freedepth dependent so it creates an error on the avg. 100...

I was thinking to something. I think your suggestion to use this limit for qualifying an evaluation is cool :) I think if infinite play is possible (in FLAT may be ??) this value should reach 0 ? Am i wrong. So we can use this as a quality factor : 0% (for lim=1)-> Wrooooooong :s_nerv: 100% (for lim...

One comment: In your table, the 9th and 10th row should have higher + factors (if the game ends, that is a +) I ran the simu in 3x3x18 in only 1 game so no game ending. Thanks again ;) Really hope that the values will converge quickly. What about the error on these values ? For instance i see that ...