3.1.3DC vs 3.1.3

Could someone explain why averaging the results from many random trees is stronger than using a single well-tuned tree?

I would suspect it might make your nearest-neighbours come from multiple perspectives, giving you areas of concavity in your nearest-neighbour function instead of just a pure convex search area. I also suspect using some fancy pre-processing on tree attributes (perhaps dimension reduction/PCA) before adding could give equivalent search patterns.

I believe that the trees tend to cancel each others errors and over fitting. That is why Random Forest works. In addition,like Voidious said, simpler trees may be better vs simple enemies.

But then each tree should be specifically tuned against a specific kind of gun. Then each tree outputs a spike at a different GF, which shouldn't be a problem since you can dodge many GFs at once.

But generating dimensions at random to mimic DrussGT 100 buffers is another matter entirely. A combination of dimensions which don't relate to any gun is supposed to hurt classification. Although I can't prove it either.

I'd tend to expect that when the "correct" parameters of the model (i.e. weightings of dimensions) are have more uncertainty than is in the resulting prediction of any one model, the consensus among a diverse set of models is less likely to be completely wrong than any one model. Or to put it another way, perhaps there there is no single well-tuned tree that fits all opponents of a large-ish category (i.e. "specific kind of gun") well enough to outperform a consensus of different models, and while there may exist well-tuned trees for smaller categories of opponents, the battles might not be long enough to reliably detect which would be the best category. That's all just conjecture of course though.

No proofs and only conjectures, but convincing enough.

I´ll try using multiple classifications generated at random in my next version and see what happens.