Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: April 2002:
[freeciv-ai] Re: Approximate win_chance

[freeciv-ai] Re: Approximate win_chance

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>, <freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: Approximate win_chance
From: Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:38:22 +0100 (BST)

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Raimar Falke wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 08:17:47PM -0400, Ross W. Wetmore wrote:
> > At 02:02 PM 02/04/24 +0200, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > >
> > >AFAIK the current win_chance isn't an approximation but returns the
> > >exact value. Or do I'm mistaken about that?
> > 
> > If I am not mistaken, you cannot compute the exact value since that is
> > determined randomly. 
> > And if you are only estimating the chance
> This is what is done.
> > , then "exactness" is not a particularly hard criteria - certainly
> > not the determining one.
> Yes the wording was bad.

Don't you fret, the wording is perfect.  The win_chance gives exact value 
for the probability to win the encounter.

> > [...]
> > >> > Bottom line 2: we have to carefully select the set of values we test
> > >> > the approximation against. Best would be the whole possible set of
> > >> > values. Or a real (not by simulation) mathematical calculation of the
> > >> > errors we have to expect.
> > >> 
> > >> Not asking for much are you?
> > >
> > >As I said this would be the ideal solution. If the current win_chance
> > >returns the correct value we have to have an estimation of the error
> > >which a new win_chance will produce.
> > 
> > I think the estimations have been done. They seem to indicate that the
> > 5th power solution is better than the current 2nd power one and almost
> > indistinguishable from the more explicit estimation of chances.
> > Since none of this really affects anything critical in the game, the 
> And this is a question which is still unanswered for me: How do you
> (the ai developers) that a particular code construct needs the "exact"
> value (as returned by win_chance) and when does it can cope with an
> approximation (which has an average/maximal error of something)? I
> suspect that you don't do this decision based on hard facts.

Hard facts are hard to come by.  Things are not black and white, 
especially in a game with such complicated rules.

You think and then you experiment.  My dissatisfaction with the performace 
of the current approximation comes from my observation described in
The decision made by the AI is not a critical one (a missed opportunity 
to inflict some damage) and if a better approximation can reduce the 
number of such non-critical errors without pushing the time up, it is 

But all such things are rather subjective...


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]