I thought the first MC Go program was Gobble, 1993, by a physics guy
named Bruegmann. The technique was quite different than today. It was
done as a simulated annealing.
Cheers,
David
On 23, May 2007, at 10:29 PM, Darren Cook wrote:
I just received the June issue of Scientific American and
Alternatively, I wonder if there is some theoretical
way to work it out?
What is the most extreme example of being behind
(either by X stones, or
by some percentage, such as Heikki's 50% above)
I think the bias comes as MCGO needs to finish the
game up to the last stone/point... Killing a
... It was done as a simulated annealing.
Yep:
http://nngs.ziar.net/cgml/split/7/5/9/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ maybe simulated annealing is Monte Carlo as performed by
blacksmiths, after all ;-]
AvK
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Question for native English speakers: do you think this technique is best
described by progressive unpruning or progressive widening?
I'm no native speaker, but I think using the word selectivity may be
most descriptive.
Does regressive selectivity sound too weird ?
regards,
-John
Quoting Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In previous versions of Orego, I have added one node per playout. I
just changed that to add a child to a node only if that node has at
least A runs, where A is the area of the board (e.g., 81). This seems
to make the program stronger, if only because
Widening sounds more natural to me.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On May 24, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Chaslot G (MICC) wrote:
Dear all,
I did experiments on 19x19 Mango with 25000 simulations per move,
against GnuGo 3.6 level 0.
Without progressive unpruning, Mango wins 2.9%
For the typical person in the U.S. the thing you prune would naturally be a
bush. Unpruning something brings up a humorous mental picture of vainly
trying to stick the clipped branches back on.
I should mention that while the idea is not new (and I've tried it
unsuccessfully myself in the
This interesting -- it implies that the place to use the heuristics
IS in the tree rather than in the playouts.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On May 24, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Chaslot G (MICC) wrote:
Dear all,
I did experiments on 19x19 Mango with 25000 simulations per move,
I'd have to read the paper to make sure I understand what's being done, but to
my ears,
progressive widening is more natural and descriptive than progressive
unpruning.
Terry McIntyre
UNIX for hire
software development / systems administration / security
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original
On 5/24/07, John Tromp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question for native English speakers: do you think this technique is best
described by progressive unpruning or progressive widening?
I'm no native speaker, but I think using the word selectivity may be
most descriptive.
Does regressive
Yes, my recent (unsuccessful) experiments have also been along these
lines. It's nice to know I wasn't barking up the wrong tree after all!
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On May 24, 2007, at 9:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the typical person in the U.S. the thing you
Does anyone know of any open source Go AI's written in pure python?
Thanks,
George
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Question for native English speakers: do you think this technique is
best described by “progressive unpruning” or “progressive widening”?
I used this term in reference to Tristan Cazenave's iterative widening
and generalized widening (I should have cited him). See:
unprune isn't a word in english (yet), so it might be more natural to
use widening.
you can un a lot of things, but pruning is generally a somewhat
irreversible action.
s.
- Original Message
From: Brian Slesinsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent:
some tree heuristics good, some tree heuristics bad.
s.
- Original Message
From: Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:53:03 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Progressive unpruning in Mango 19x19
This interesting
If I remember right, the original SimpleBot by Aloril was in python. There
was also a spin off called PyBot. Cheating and looking at
http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/names.html, I believe the spin off was by Deren
Dohoda... who also helped with SimpleBot. The two bots probably represented
On Wed, 23 May 2007, David Doshay wrote:
I thought the first MC Go program was Gobble, 1993, by a physics guy
named Bruegmann. The technique was quite different than today. It was
done as a simulated annealing.
That's the first one I heard of ...
Christoph
From: George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone know of any open source Go AI's written in pure python?
http://senseis.xmp.net/?SimpleGo - early versions appear to have been pure
python.
later versions use a mix of python and c for the monte carlo bits where
performance matters.
Yes, unpruning sounds like undoing something previously done.
With our trees we can prune and unprune, but that is not what
is being discussed. It is the branching growth of the tree, not
cutting some lines of play off and then deciding to bring them
back.
Because we are adding nodes for the
If you want to go this way, I would use progressive branching.
Cheers,
David
On 24, May 2007, at 10:56 AM, Richard Brown wrote:
Allow me to suggest a third alternative, one which I believe to be
best,
progressive grafting.
___
computer-go
I think grafting would imply attaching an already-existing structure,
as in genetic programming. This is just about expanding the allowable
area into which the tree grows.
Maybe the bonsai folks have a term for this...
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On May 24, 2007, at 10:56
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
Chaslot G (MICC) wrote:
Question for native English speakers: do you think this technique is
best described by “progressive unpruning” or “progressive widening”?
By neither.
Allow me to suggest a third alternative, one
22 matches
Mail list logo
