[Computer-go] Conference spam redux (was: Re: EXTENDED Full Paper Submission : TelSaTech 2013 - Advanced Science Letters Journal)
On 05/17/2013 07:31 PM, Petr Baudis wrote: I don't see any requirement to move to moderation, mailman can unsubscribe and/or block individual sender addresses just fine. Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. So with that in mind, I'll toss in a kick vote too. The bigger problem is that this is just one guy, while there are many different accounts that have been created to post conference spam. It seems like a losing battle unless there's an option to moderate the first post. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] EXTENDED Full Paper Submission : TelSaTech 2013 - Advanced Science Letters Journal
On 05/17/2013 03:22 PM, Mark Boon wrote: More plugs disguised as an apology. Very clever :) I vote in favor of kicking these guys off the list. The list isn't moderated, so it's a big deal to move to moderation and figure out what that entails. We can either put up with it (and put the guy in your kill file), or move to moderation. *Now* what do you vote for? ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Develop a client for KGS?
On 11/08/2012 08:10 PM, Henry Hu wrote: Thanks all. Now I've been working on a web Go game. My purpose is to connect to some Go server for providing users with extended functionalities. Is there any public Go server available? I knew IGS' protocol was also proprietary. IGS allows 3rd party clients, but then it wouldn't be a web client, as it would have to talk over telnet to a specific port. You might try asking the Kaya.gs owners if there's some way to implement what you want, as they have a beta web/client server and are interested in new features: http://kaya.gs/kayags/project.php ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Kaś Cup
On 07/12/2012 10:22 AM, Don Dailey wrote: The real point of this is to impose a more western attitude to the game, trying to crush your opponent - pick off every possible stone you can, etc. That's overly dramatic and political. Eastern players don't throw away points like unsophisticated monte carlo bots do near the endgame, yet they certainly could to be extremely safe. Also, bangneki, which this is based on, was around before Western influence. Just for my two bits, I like the idea of this tournament, but I do agree the 50 point cap is artificial. I'd rather see that limitation removed and see how the tournament works out instead of trying to pre-optimize it. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Game 2 goes to Zen: 1-1
On 01/15/2012 10:18 AM, Michael Williams wrote: Kibitzing anything in that room is pointless for all the noise. For both games, I set up a clone game with moderated chat where only dans could kibitz. Unfortunately, at best it only had 10% participation (based on observer counts) and the strongest and most frequent kibitzers, Aja and gogonuts, kept to the unmoderated game. The one exception was Avidya (David Ormerod from gogameguru.com), who provided excellent comments. I'll try and recruit the high level dans before tonight's game, and see if I can get the moderated game listed on the Active Games tab next to the unmoderated one. If it doesn't work out, I'll stop trying to host these, as it takes some effort. It would be nice if this could be an automated and standard feature of KGS events, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Here are the two dan-kibitz games: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2012/1/14/PaperTiger.sgf http://files.gokgs.com/games/2012/1/15/PaperTiger.sgf They are a nice way to review the games with some high-level comments. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Game 2 goes to Zen: 1-1
On 01/15/2012 03:19 PM, Richard J. Lorentz wrote: In case you cannot get the listing next to the unmoderated one, will I still be able to easily find your moderated game by just scrolling the list of games and looking for tromp vs. zen19n, presumably with an extra tag or flag or something? It will be (if I do it again) in the list of games in the Computer Go room as a demonstration, with the players' names in the title. The first game was ok, but in the second game Avidya could have used some more company from higher-level dans. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Game 2 goes to Zen: 1-1
Game 3, with mostly dan-level comments: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2012/1/16/PaperTiger-2.sgf Zen won by resignation. Series is 2-1 in Zen's favor. I got Aja 6d and gogonuts 5d to kibitz, and participation by observer count was much better, around 60 versus the 260 or so for the unmoderated game. On 01/15/2012 03:03 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: On 01/15/2012 10:18 AM, Michael Williams wrote: Kibitzing anything in that room is pointless for all the noise. For both games, I set up a clone game with moderated chat where only dans could kibitz. Unfortunately, at best it only had 10% participation (based on observer counts) and the strongest and most frequent kibitzers, Aja and gogonuts, kept to the unmoderated game. The one exception was Avidya (David Ormerod from gogameguru.com), who provided excellent comments. I'll try and recruit the high level dans before tonight's game, and see if I can get the moderated game listed on the Active Games tab next to the unmoderated one. If it doesn't work out, I'll stop trying to host these, as it takes some effort. It would be nice if this could be an automated and standard feature of KGS events, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Here are the two dan-kibitz games: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2012/1/14/PaperTiger.sgf http://files.gokgs.com/games/2012/1/15/PaperTiger.sgf They are a nice way to review the games with some high-level comments. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] zen19n
On 01/12/2012 08:19 PM, Darren Cook wrote: It seems to have bounced back from the vicmorrow loss. Perhaps John can learn something from that game ;-) He's not going to learn much unless he takes a 4 stone handicap. This vicmorrow guy is, more than likely and sadly, the same sandbagger that was recently deranked. He started his account on the same day as the deranking, also has a Taiwanese client, and played exclusively the Aya bots before playing Zen. He doesn't resign in the middle of the games now, and wins more of them, but I don't believe for a second he isn't sandbagging. If any games are to be learned from, it's the losses from equal or stronger players like Aja. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] CrazyStone in the 5-dan footsteps of Zen
On 01/09/2012 11:54 AM, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote:
Of course I am making this up. The point is that the assumption that
a single account is associated with exactly one human who is the same
human to play on that account. Additionally, there are those out
there in the human world who don't value rank variation near as much
as those creating bots might like or want. {smirk}
First of all, you're not allowed to share an account, and if the admins
find out they'll derank you just as if you had been intentionally
sandbagging.
Also, it's not just the bot creators that value the integrity of the
rank system. As a KGS player, I report anybody when I find obvious
cheating. I originally reported this player and I stand by it.
Bot bashing is rampant on KGS, and there are several people on KGS who
feel like they are defending the honor of humanity. My guess is that
this person took it too far.
This person spent all their time playing bots, had an amazing record
against CrazyStone, and resigned several games in the middle where he
had a lead or good chances against the Aya bots.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] CrazyStone in the 5-dan footsteps of Zen
On 01/02/2012 05:04 PM, Rémi Coulom wrote: Improving the KGS rank at 5d is very difficult. The current experimental version of Crazy Stone wins 78% against Crazy Stone 2011. That's less than one stone difference on KGS. But I am sure both Zen and Crazy Stone will reach 6d in 2012. There are two problems with the KGS rankings: One, they are weighed down a lot by past games from weaker versions. Two, you have to worry about people trying to game the system. I found strong evidence that one of the frequent CrazyStone players was losing games intentionally against a weaker bot, while at the same time winning frequently against CrazyStone. I brought this up with an admin, and he said they were looking into it, but several days have gone by and the player was not deranked (which is the usual punishment for gaming the system, and would remove past games from the rank calculation). ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] CrazyStone in the 5-dan footsteps of Zen
On 01/07/2012 02:59 PM, Nick Wedd wrote: If this is the user I think it is, there are too many losses for it to be coincidence. Yes, he lost dozens of games in a row. After I sent my message to the admin, he then won a couple. Coincidence? Seems unlikely. I am suspicious, but at 3k I am not strong enough to spot suspicious moves in his losses against the weaker bot. I shall try to persuade a stronger admin to check on his losses. A lot of these games were stopped well before the end and for no apparent reason on the board, something this player didn't do when playing CrazyStone. Since many of these losses were against 3k bots, it would be enough to use a public version of a bot with equal or stronger rank and play the game out in self-play. If the bot in his position wins several times, it's clear he had no reason to be resigning so early. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] CrazyStone in the 5-dan footsteps of Zen
On 01/07/2012 03:07 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Jeff, it does not matter what ten humans does with the games, because they are insignificant compared to bulk mass of games that gobots are playing. therefore CS's it has no relevance for the rating system. Maybe, but you may be underestimating how much damage a few dedicated players can do. This one player accounted for about 8% of the games against CrazyStone since November, and because he lost so many games against solid bots, he affects the rank even more than a regular player. Also 6 months is very very short time, and when old games are starting to expire, KGS rating will follow. See e.g. CS rating graph for reference. I think waiting months for old games to expire when you make an improvement is not so good. If I was running bots on KGS I'd have 7 rotating accounts, and only play an account for a month so that it wouldn't get heavy. KGS rating system works brilliantly and it is almost impossible to exploit, It's a lot easier than you think, and I've reported a few people where something is clearly being abused, whether it is sandbagging or cheating to get a higher rank. 6d for MC-gobot seems a bit optimistic, I would bet €5 that it won't happen in 2012. 6d's are ridiculously strong. I calculated that in January, out of 56 games against 5d's CS won 48%. This is indeed impressive, although there is long way to beat 6d's in even game. Zen19d is already winning 64% out of 59 games that are even and 56% out of 27 against higher rank since November: http://kgs.gosquares.net/index.rhtml.en?id=Zen19did2=r=1ty=2011tm=11 I would be very surprised if it isn't 6d in 2012. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Moyo Go Studio
On 01/31/2011 09:12 PM, David Doshay wrote: Does anyone on this list use this software? Its use requires disabling anti-virus software. The author of that software has made violent threats to members of the Go community. Whether it will harm your computer or not for me is besides the point -- I would not use it or endorse it even if it was perfectly safe. But anyways, these days you can run software you don't trust inside a virtual machine. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Could a 'doubling dice'** encourage early resignation by programs?
I like the idea, though for sure it would take extra work. I like the idea of some kind of Bang Neki tournament even more. It was discussed previously on the list: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.games.devel.go/20580 The best bots are already playing well. Who would have imagined a 1d bot 5 years ago? I think encouraging the bots to move in human-interest directions is a time that has come. Definitely not for all tournaments, but maybe something like 1 in 4 should be fun, experimental tournaments. It may even encourage those who have weaker bots to enter into a fresh field. On 01/27/2011 07:38 PM, David Doshay wrote: Yes, we could take on the rules from any one of a number of other games. Each would have some advantage, perhaps some disadvantage. But why? Rather than complicate the rule set to nudge our programs in one direction or another via a new reward function, why don't we just concentrate on trying to get them to play the game well? That seems hard enough to me. Cheers, David On 27, Jan 2011, at 6:31 AM, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: Could a 'doubling dice'** encourage early resignation by programs? each program would have to forfeit a double game, if it played on and lost the game, but could resign for a single loss. scores in earnest might need to be tallied in the public arena. though one would hope that the application designers. regards Jonathan Chetwynd http://www.peepo.com **as per backgammon, either player can double, but then it is the opponent's choice to resign or accept, and to redouble at their discretion, though this aspect may be ott. apologies if I missed the obvious, it seems I omitted the most severe error, playing on, when a game is lost. in the thread: Are 4 'easy to avoid errors' common to all MC programs? ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Beta-testing: feedback to bot owners
On 01/22/2011 08:53 AM, Nick Wedd wrote: I prefer to leave things as they are. It would be nice to have one 9x9 event as integer komi. It's good to leave room for a little experimentation. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Fwd: News on Tromp-Cook ?
On 01/02/2011 10:17 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote: The playout policy I used in the 2007 version of Steenvreter was developed independently of the Mogo policy. Did this policy include the idea of sequences (playing near the last move), and if so, was that developed independently? Memories are notoriously faulty. Priority has to be given to published papers and established results. It is not enough to say some months after MoGo established itself and published the ideas behind the implementation that you would have gotten there on your own with Steenvreter. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Fwd: News on Tromp-Cook ?
On 01/02/2011 05:24 PM, Erik van der Werf wrote: Agreed, as long as you don't deny things that were out there long before someone wrote 'the' paper. I have seen a rather natural progression from work of Brugman, Kaminski, Bouzy, Helmstetter, Hamlen, etc. to where we are today. Pinpointing the invention of MCTS in time or to a single person is simply not that easy. I agree completely, and stated as such in my first message that touched off this long thread (and repeated many times since). I never credited MoGo with inventing MCTS or UCT. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] News on Tromp-Cook ?
On 12/30/2010 08:20 PM, Aja wrote: Hi Jeff, When, do you think, did Mogo started dominating all the KGS computer events and CGOS, and also was the first to extend that dominance from 9x9 to 19x19.? Hello Aja, Here I quote from the computer-go archives, unless otherwise noted: Dec. 31, 2006: John Tromp: I spent most of yesterday on KGS playtesting MoGo on 9x9 with 30 min total thinking time. The experience was quite unlike any other program I've played on 9x9 in the past. [..] I feel that the shodan level go 9x9 programs have arrived... Jan 12, 2007: Don Dailey: Someone needs to get their bot on CGOS and end Mogo's reign of terror. A version of MoGo has achieved a CGOS rating of well over 2300! Mar 04, 2007: Peter Drake: Congratulations to MoGo on winning the KGS tournament held earlier today: [..] Even under borderline blitz conditions (18 minutes sudden death for 19x19), MoGo managed to beat conventional programs like GNU Go. [..] Of course, MoGo also beat all the other MC/UCT programs. How did MoGo do it? Nick Wedd's summary from the above KGS tournament: Last September Kocsis and Csaba Szepesvári published Bandit based Monte-Carlo Planning. The algorithm described there was implemented in MoGo. There was some doubt about its effectiveness for large boards and for fast games, but it was clear that it worked well for small boards particularly with slow time limits: MoGo has won nine of the eleven KGS bot tournaments held since September. However, this March event used full-sized boards and fast time limits. Some people expected MoGo to do less well, perhaps losing to more conventional programs such as ManyFaces, GNU Go, and Aya. They were wrong. MoGo won all twelve of its games. [CrazyStone won 6 games in the same tournament.] http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/24/index.html Mar 17, 2007: Don Dailey: It's unbelievable how strong MoGo is playing. I remember when CGOS first came up, I expected it to be a few years before a program could achieve 2000.0 on the CGOS scale. But I was quickly surpised when programs started breaking over 1800.0. But this is quite incredible. MoGo_G3.4 at 2480! If you look at the crosstable, it's mostly 100% wins against everyone else. In fact, the only non-Mogo program to beat it, won a single game out of 15 played, and it's a pretty strong program too. In Computer Olympiad 2007, Steenvreter was gold medal on 9x9. Yes, and this is what Eric had to say about it: Steenvreter uses UCT and has some LD knowledge that I reused from Magog. and: Steenvreter was really a rush job, hacking things together until the last day before the tournament and no time to test properly. I was hoping to be able to catch up with the stronger programs, but never expected it to win the tournament. Obviously it was following MoGo's lead with UCT (the tournament was held in June 2007, well after the remarkable success of MoGo). I don't mean to discredit Steenvreter, CrazyStone, or any other program. I'm just focusing on MoGo so much because it set the bar so high and got everybody chasing it. Mogo's biggest contributions, so far, in my view, are 1.Applied UCT to computer Go, and such application came from the idea MCTS that proposed in 2006 by Remi Coulom. Crazy Stone was using MCTS to win 9x9 in 2006 Computer Olympiad. 2.See 3x3 patterns around the previous move. 3.RAVE (strictly speaking, it is invented by David Silver). This is essentially what I said in my first message. I did not place enough emphasis on CrazyStone then, even though I did reference it (The MoGo team applied UCT to Go with great success, using the idea of building incremental trees from CrazyStone.). UCT and RAVE are for both for the tree search. I think Crazy tone's contribution for the playout is of same/or more important, because the quality of simulations decide the playing strength much. From this view, we should give Crazy Stone more and more credit. Sure, I agree. CrazyStone was definitely a big part of the monte carlo tree search revolution in computer go. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Fwd: News on Tromp-Cook ?
On 12/31/2010 07:31 AM, Rémi Coulom wrote: I'd like to advise against using the exact algorithm I described in my 2006 paper. I compared it to UCT at that time, and UCT performed better. I am sorry I don't have a reference to my data any more. I posted the results to the mailing list. It used to be archived at that link: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2006-July/005737.html I hope somebody kept an archive an can forward it to the list. The title of that message was Experiments with UCT. It is too bad that the archive of that time is gone. Is it available anywhere? The google archive starts later. Here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.games.devel.go/6366 Archives and current messages for this list can be found at: http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.games.devel.go I don't like the web interface, however. It's very hard to browse the threads for a particular month without a lot of clicking. The search is OK, though. What I do is use the traditional NTTP news interface to gmane. Thunderbird (my newsreader) has an option to download all the messages, which is nice for browsing messages, both old and new. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] News on Tromp-Cook ?
On 12/30/2010 01:58 PM, David Fotland wrote: You should also give more credit to CrazyStone as an early strong program that contributed many ideas, comparable to Mogo. Remi is Aja's advisor, so Erica continues the CrazyStone thread. I did mention CrazyStone, and the Sensei's page lists it first as the program that started the new wave of MCTS programs by winning the 9x9 gold medal at the ICGA Computer Olympiad, in 2006. Like I said in my first message, though, it's hard to assign credit, and I don't mean to slight other programs. However, MoGo was the program that really got people to sit up and take notice, because it started dominating all the KGS computer events and CGOS, and also was the first to extend that dominance from 9x9 to 19x19. I believe the biggest breakthroughs were made with MoGo (building, of course, on earlier ideas). This is easily verified by going back to the archives and seeing how many people patterned their program after MoGo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] News on Tromp-Cook ?
On 12/30/2010 06:10 PM, Michael Williams wrote: Perhaps the client viewer should have the ability to hide comments by rank. Then anyone can be allowed to post, as long as they know that not everyone will hear them. The problem with that is you end up with a bunch of disjointed chat (people replying to those whose comments you have hidden), and even then the dans get sucked into random conversations. I was really happy with the dan analysis, but then it's also fun to have the free-for-all kibitz too, so I think two separate game windows is the best solution. The best part is that this is already possible with the KGS clone feature. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] 4th GPW Cup, etc.
On 11/18/2010 06:08 PM, Hideki Kato wrote: 9x9 Go tournament Rules: Round-robin, area scoring, simple ko, no sucide, 7.0 komi, 10 min each. Participants: All but Zen (6 programs). Results: 1st Aya, 2nd Coldmilk, 3rd Nomitan. Sorry for the late reply. Are the games available for these results? I'm curious how the programs handled the integer komi, like if there were a lot of draws or misplayed positions. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] 9x9 news
On 09/26/2010 07:36 PM, Darren Cook wrote: *: For most of the other strong programs the losses were as black, so the 7.5pt komi is too high hypothesis still stands. So does the 6.5 komi is too low hypothesis. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] anti-pondering
On 09/14/2010 04:36 PM, terry mcintyre wrote: From my observations of human-versus-bot games, a winning strategy against bots seems to be: Create several capturing races, even if you lose all of them. Is there an established, reliable way to create capturing races against bots? ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Reminder: Human vs Computer Go competition in Barcelona tomorrow
On 07/23/2010 08:02 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote: Well, first of all I think in normal games players should be free to chose any komi they like. Of course for rated games there may be some restrictions but on KGS those don't apply to 9x9 anyway (9x9 games are not rated). Is this just a problem with the robot protocol on KGS? Under the human interface, you're given an option to change komi after a challenge if you use Custom Game. For 9x9 computer go tournaments I would propose to use either komi of 6.5 or 7.0. That way at least it's not a clear disadvantage to play first. Early on, I did some preliminary testing for supporting draws under monte carlo, using the obvious idea of treating the draw as a half a win. The bots would often go for the draw, even if there was an obvious winning move. I didn't spend any further time on it, but if 7 really is the right komi for 9x9, I suspect the games would turn into a draw-fest. Intuitively, I would suspect that moving to 6.5 komi would just unbalance the game the same amount in the other direction, but maybe that isn't the case. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Chess vs Go // AI vs IA
On 06/02/2010 01:14 PM, Don Dailey wrote: Why are you comparing humans to computers?It's ridiculous to measure progress by comparing to the top human players.What we care about is how much progress we can make from year to year. Come on Don, you know that the top players are the gold standard that the programs are trying to beat. That's why lots of programmers have been moving to Go from chess. The original question was why is Go harder than chess for computers, as it clearly is (are you disputing this?). I think Steve answered the question very well in his original reply. I understand your dispute with Dave's simplification, but I think you can agree that alpha-beta for chess was a strong foundation to build on, that it didn't work for Go, and that we now have monte-carlo tree search as the foundation. Nobody disputes Go has made progress and will continue to do so. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Old archives
On 06/02/2010 05:40 PM, Peter Drake wrote: Are the older archives available somewhere? You can find archives at gmane: http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.games.devel.go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Chess vs Go // AI vs IA
On 06/02/2010 05:49 PM, Don Dailey wrote: Equaling humans is an arbitrary and very long term goal, but it should not define how hard or easy something is and should not define what works and what doesn't work. That's my beef. Yet you say in another message that it's a natural measuring stick. I don't even know why you are arguing this. It's like arguing that the sky isn't blue, but rather some shade of arbitrary color. Throw a dart at the AI literature and you'll see comparisons to humans, and for good reason. The only problem is that I was answering Dave, not Steve. Your reply that I replied to was in response to Steve, who was trying to ground the conversation back to the original question. Anyways, I think this conversation is off the rails and a bit ridiculous. I do accept that lots of gains have been made in chess algorithms, and I appreciate your views on the matter, but otherwise you seem a bit oversensitive and unreasonable. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
