Planned investigations

Jump to navigation Jump to search

I would also suggest, to relabel old variant and put it in rumble. I feel that old rumble stats had a lot of disabled bots. It might appear that old version is better but it is actually not. Plus we have at least 3 new above top 100 bots which might pull your APS down.

Beaming (talk)‎03:19, 9 September 2017

That is true, it is also my intention to do so. I always compare against the older version via Botdetails, it let you see the differences betweeen the common pairings, so that really is the difference, even if only 1000 bots are in common. Just remove the 'd' from versionnumber and press Compare.

GrubbmGait (talk)‎09:25, 9 September 2017

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You must confirm your email address before editing pages. Please set and validate your email address through your user preferences.

You can view and copy the source of this page.

Return to Thread:Talk:GrubbmThree/Planned investigations/reply (9).

I do know that some bots don't work very well in Robocode 1.9.2.x and/or Java 8. See f.e. Xiongan.xiongan and tcf.Drifter, they get scores of 0 against GrubbmThree, while on my system (1.9.2.5 and Java 7) they just work ok.

GrubbmGait (talk)‎16:58, 9 September 2017

There is else but Java 7 vs 8. I ran tcf.Drifter vs. GrubbmThree 0.9d in robocode GUI with Java 8. Drifter constantly wins the match.

So I cannot attribute 100% loss which we see in rumble just to the Java version.

Beaming (talk)‎19:59, 9 September 2017

I did read somewhere that tcf.Drifter had some problem with the 1.9.2.5_beta versions, maybe someone is running the rumble with a non-official 1.9.2.5 version ?

GrubbmGait (talk)‎13:24, 10 September 2017
 
 
 
 
 
Retrieved from "http://robowiki.net/wiki/Thread:Talk:GrubbmThree/Planned_investigations/reply_(7)#Planned_investigations_5685"