Talk:Darkcanuck/RRServer
Fire away...
Just a suggestion for an additional check. I have never seen score a bot more than 8000 points, so this could be checked too. When examining the results that messed up the original roborumble rating beyond repair, I saw results of 20000 against 16000 (Thats what you get when running OneOnOne with MELEE=YES). For the time being I let my client running (unattended) for ABC's server, as I don't really have the time for bughunting. Your effort however seems promising. Good luck. -- GrubbmGait
- Thanks! That's a good check, will be combining that with the survival >=35 (also your suggestion I think) once I rearrange the error handling and failure output to the client. Then I'll look into ELO... --Darkcanuck
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
You cannot post new threads to this discussion page because it has been protected from new threads, or you do not currently have permission to edit.
Contents
Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
---|---|---|
retiring ELO column | 6 | 15:51, 17 February 2012 |
FatalFlaw's uploads have suspicious APS for Tomcat | 0 | 04:58, 16 February 2012 |
kidmumu uploads | 3 | 17:16, 1 February 2012 |
Feature Request: average APS diff in bots compare | 6 | 15:55, 17 November 2011 |
Performance | 1 | 22:48, 13 November 2011 |
Now that everyone's ELO rating is subzero in General 1v1 =), is it maybe time to retire it altogether?
I'm all for it =) Although, doesn't the LRP depend on ELO data? Maybe shift that over to Glicko data instead? And if there was some way to make the LRP show the 'expected' option by default... that would make my day =)
I'd also support removal of ELO from the rumble, and replacing it with Glicko or Glicko2 in the places that use it (LRP).
Elo is working fine, even with negative scores, but keeping both Elo and Glicko-2 is redundant. So, removing one of them is fine by me.
FatalFlaw's uploads have suspicious APS for Tomcat:
- lxx.Tomcat 3.55 VS voidious.mini.Komarious 1.88
- lxx.Tomcat 3.55 VS "baal.nano.N 1.42
- lxx.Tomcat 3.55 VS gf.Centaur.Centaur 0.6.7
Darkcanuck, can you rollback all his uploads?
I haven't had a chance to check if this could affect mn.Combat, but my #1 guess would be that perhaps it's a java version issue (i.e. kidmumu is using Java 5 and Combat requires Java 6?).
Failing that, I'd have to think that kidmumu's client may be skipping turns.
Probably a Java version issue. I´ll downgrade to 1.5 in future versions. But didn´t check other bots scores.
I'm sure there are lots of bots that require Java 6, right? We might want to have Darkcanuck rollback all his uploads until we can get kidmumu onto Java 6.
I find that until all pairings is done it's very useful to know current avarage difference in APS between two versions - after about 100 random battles this number says fairly exactly is newer version better, than older.
Darkcanuck, can you schedule to add row for columns "% Score", "% Survival" in section "+/- Difference" in bots compare page with avarage value of corresponds columns? I think, there're work for 1-2 hours maximum
I think this is already covered by the 'Common % Score (APS)' and 'Common % Survival', the lowest two lines in the top-table. At least I use it to check if my changes have a positive (or negative) result when the pairings are not complete yet.
No. May be i wrote not clear.
I mean, that i want to know average difference in pairings between 2 versions. According to my tests, this number stabilizes mach faster, than APS. And more, Common % Score does not make sense, because while there only 1 battle in every pairing it's exactly equals to APS and in another case, there may be 10 battles against Walls and 1 battle against Druss.
As far as I know, when your new version has for example 100 pairings, you will see the average APS for that 100 pairings. AND for your older version you will also see the APS for that 100 pairings. And you are right, this indicates much more reliable what your final score will be (relative to your older version) than plain APS. The one who can really answer this question is Darkcanuck.
The common %score is calculated just like APS, but only for pairings that the old and new versions have in common. That makes it easier to compare two versions when the new one is still missing many pairings, or in the case where the old bot may have pairings against a lot of retired bots (and may be missing scores vs newer bots). I think that's what you're looking for...
Yes, thank you:)
Can you turn on .htaccess browser caching for results.
#Caching ExpiresActive on ExpiresByType image/gif "access plus 1 year"
Other performance enhancing things you can do are: Set specific size for the images, inline or via CSS. CSS would be easier. This would speed up the page loading and be also less annoying while all the requests are going through (having default sized images deforming the table before they load). Minify the HTML/CSS/JS (less to send).
Not doing/doable for known reasons: Serve identical files from the same url. (flag images)