I want to prepare an opening book and I am looking for a 9x9 games
collection. So far I have only found in total 244 games, which is for a book
much too less (I am used to have the CB-Megabase).
Is there a larger collection with at least = 5 Amateur Dan Level available?
If the price is
Except for the relation between not finding 9x9 games
which is *not* real go, you can find as many 19x19 games
as you want, I agree with Chrilly.
Let's accept it. We are amateurs, all except those who
are paid by some University to research on go. And even
some of them are, because a serious go
Hi Nick, thank you for the tournament.
I have two questions. One is the start time of the tournament.
According to the page: http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/index.html,
it started 16:00 GMT but it started 24:00 JST (+900). I guess it
started 15:00 GMT. #DST problem?
The other is about the
Very well said Jacques. I agree with everything you said.
A couple of comment below.
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 12:02 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Except for the relation between not finding 9x9 games
which is *not* real go, you can find as many 19x19 games
as you want, I agree with Chrilly.
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jason
House [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Open Division Round 1
- You mention AyaBot2 joining it's game with CrazyStone. That should
be HBotSVN.
Yes, my mistake, now corrected
- Printing name and version number happens when the bot crashes,
kgsGtp terminates, and
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hideki Kato
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Hi Nick, thank you for the tournament.
I have two questions. One is the start time of the tournament.
According to the page: http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/index.html,
it started 16:00 GMT but it started 24:00 JST (+900). I
On 7/9/07, Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jason
House [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Open Division Round 5
- I personally thought the IdiotBot/HBotSVN game had an interesting
end position. Despite the extreme weakness of HBotSVN (simply using
the UCB algorithm), the
On 7/9/07, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/9/07, Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, HB04 does not show up in the names of programs page. Of course,
the housebot logins are piling up:
HouseBot: Intended for stable version of HouseBot. It's the only
ranked account.
HB04 -
On 7/9/07, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/9/07, George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this is what I want. Thanks! So I might have to repeat this
a few hundred times to actually get a legal position?
Are you aware that nearly all of these positions will be final
I'll bet there have been millions of 9x9 games by very strong
players, they are probably just not readily accessible.
Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur),
and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9 games with people who were just learning
the rules. I played
In that case, you would probably rather have actual Go positions,
right? Just grab a bunch of CGOS games (assuming you are studying
9x9) and pick a game and move number at random.
On 7/9/07, George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/9/07, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
Do you have a good example of a regular Go game in sgf?
A lot of the examples I found on the SGF spec site seem confusing, and
not sure if they're even for Go or backgammon, etc.
Also is there a command line go conversion program kinda like
pgnextract that lets you modify sgf datasets. Like
On 7/9/07, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur),
and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9 games with people who were just learning
the rules. I played in a couple of 9x9 tournaments on the crazy go day at
the go congress
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 11:49 -0400, Joshua Shriver wrote:
I really like the pgn format, just viewing it you can get a feel for
what is going on. I tried to figure out the SGF format by looking at
it, and have no clue what's going on.
SGF has a real grammer associated with it and is technically
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 09:12 -0700, David Fotland wrote:
I'll bet there have been millions of 9x9 games by very strong
players, they are probably just not readily accessible.
Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur),
and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9
Brian,
The idea of moving towards 13x13 appeals to me too. I would even
consider removing the 9x9 server and going to 13x13 instead if I didn't
think it would cause an out-rage.
At some point sticking with 9x9 is going to inhibit progress in my
opinion. And a really strong 13x13 program is
Ok found some KGS games, and they make a lot more sense. With the
specification I can see what all of the OT, AP, TM, FF, etc commads
are. However I don't understand the way it sets the location, so far
nothing I've seen describes it.
;B[kr] for example.
I thought Go boards used A..x 1..y
On 7/9/07, George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/9/07, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/9/07, George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this is what I want. Thanks! So I might have to repeat this
a few hundred times to actually get a legal position?
Are you
Le lundi 9 juillet 2007 18:46, Joshua Shriver a écrit :
Ok found some KGS games, and they make a lot more sense. With the
specification I can see what all of the OT, AP, TM, FF, etc commads
are. However I don't understand the way it sets the location, so far
nothing I've seen describes it.
I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss ratio to
approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to improvements. As one tweaks the
program, the progress would be measurable within a few games, one's handicap
would decrease.
Is it possible to tie together the
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 12:46 -0400, Joshua Shriver wrote:
Ok found some KGS games, and they make a lot more sense. With the
specification I can see what all of the OT, AP, TM, FF, etc commads
are. However I don't understand the way it sets the location, so far
nothing I've seen describes it.
I think it would be great to try this out. Perhaps at 13x13.
On 7/9/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:10 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss
ratio to approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it possible to tie together the handicap information and the
win-loss percentages into a unified ELO-type score? Would an
experiment be needed to measure the effect of handicap stones on the
probability of winning?
I think the common formula is 100
From what I can tell, there has not been a clash of the Go titans
since the 2003 Gifu Challenge, which had all of KCC Igo, Haruka, Go+
+, Goemate/Handtalk, Many Faces, GNU Go, and Go Intellect
participating. (This was the last public competition for many of
these programs.) It seems with
On 7/9/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the common formula is 100 ELO per stone? I think we could
start with this guess (or a better one) and after a few weeks of play we
could do a statistical analysis to see if things are as they should be.
Then we could make any adjustments
If I took a set of game positions, generated by flipping a coin, and
generated a histogram of
x = black_stones - white_stones
I would expect to see the distribution of x looking like a nice Gaussian,
centered at zero. If I looked at positions generated by playing out moves, I
would
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian
Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
From what I can tell, there has not been a clash of the Go titans since
the 2003 Gifu Challenge, which had all of KCC Igo, Haruka, Go+ +,
Goemate/Handtalk, Many Faces, GNU Go, and Go Intellect participating.
(This was the last
- Original Message -
From: Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 8:01 PM
Subject: [computer-go] Who's going to the Gifu Challenge?
From what I can tell, there has not been a clash of the Go titans
since the 2003 Gifu
Don Dailey wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:10 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss
ratio to approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to improvements.
As one tweaks the program, the progress would be measurable within a
few
Ian Osgood wrote:
From what I can tell, there has not been a clash of the Go titans
since the 2003 Gifu Challenge, which had all of KCC Igo, Haruka, Go++,
Goemate/Handtalk, Many Faces, GNU Go, and Go Intellect participating.
(This was the last public competition for many of these programs.) It
On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:17 AM, Nick Wedd wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
From what I can tell, there has not been a clash of the Go titans
since the 2003 Gifu Challenge, which had all of KCC Igo, Haruka, Go
+ +, Goemate/Handtalk, Many Faces, GNU Go,
There is prize money. I think it was about $3000 US last year for
first place.
No remote computing, so if like me you use a cluster, you must bring it.
Cheers,
David
On 9, Jul 2007, at 11:33 AM, chrilly wrote:
travel to Ogaki City, Japan for this year's Gifu Challenge?
Is there a price
Yes, without variations SGF is not hard. Unfortunately, doing it right
when you want to look at lots of variations at each move is quite
tricky. We need to do this to inspect what SlugGo is considering on
each of the many CPUs we are using, and every now and again we
need to revisit this code.
Don wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 12:53 +0200, Magnus Persson wrote:
I just had an exception in Valkyria because it recieved
play b resign
from the server.
As far as I know CGOS used to to send nothing to the winner when a program
resigned. Am I wrong or has this something to do
Ok, my bad.I will take it out of the next client version. If it
causes anyone trouble it can easily be removed from the client, just let
me know.
- Don
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 23:24 +0200, Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:
Don wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 12:53 +0200, Magnus Persson wrote:
I
Dave wrote:
We have seen a similar effect many times in MoGo. Often we try
something that seems like it should improve the quality of the
simulation player, but it makes the overall performance worse. It is
frustrating and surprising! Has anyone else encountered this?
I'm not surprised. The
Don wrote:
Of course now we just had to go and spoil it all by imposing domain
specific rules. I have done the same and I admit it.It would be fun
to see how far we could go if domain specific knowledge was forbidden as
an experiment. Once patterns are introduced along with other direct
Yes. This number is strongly dependent on strength and board size I
think. Very roughly speaking, you can argue as follows
1) in a 9x9 game, the weaker player has only 1/4 as many moves in
which to throw away the handicap advantage (compared to 19x19).
2) weak players lose so many points
Benjamin wrote:
I have build just for fun a simple BackGammon engine. [...]
Interesting - did you also try it for chess, or do you think there's
no point in this?
This is a bit of speculation since I don't know enough about chess but I
suspect that uniform random simulation in go is about as
On 7/9/07, Gunnar Farnebäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik wrote:
Sure, but that does not necessarily matter because there are many more
end- than middle-game positions. The reason I brought it up is that I
remembered a statement by someone (sorry forgot the source, maybe John
or Gunnar
This discussion reminds me of a naive theory that I sometimes wonder about:
Since the players in the playouts are so weak, it seems like the
improving the ability to defend a strong position from a
not-very-clever move (and not lose it via a blunder) should be more
important than improving the
41 matches
Mail list logo
