After 39 games it looks pretty close:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
1 d3p 2009 55 5539 51% 20000%
2 base 2000 55 5539 49% 20090%
confidence interval still too high to say for sure, but it is starting
to appear that depth 2 works better
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 17:59 +0200, Berk Ozbozkurt wrote:
> Heikki Levanto wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 08:01:27PM +0200, Berk Ozbozkurt wrote:
> >
> >> I think such a change may make engine objectively stronger while making
> >> it more vulnerable against humans. Even if the human opponen
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 08:01:27PM +0200, Berk Ozbozkurt wrote:
I think such a change may make engine objectively stronger while making
it more vulnerable against humans. Even if the human opponent isn't
aware of the move pruning logic initially, it wouldn't take a lot
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 14:45 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> Of course a clever player who
> knows about this can direct the game so that he ends with a moyo,
> where the
> optimal reduction move does not get considered. That sounds tricky,
> and the
> advantage from such is slight, he can be a tiny
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:25:01PM +, p...@tabor.com wrote:
> I think Heikki makes a valid point here. I am not a particularly strong
> player (about 1-2 dan european), but I have learned that playing
> defensively is generally detrimental to the final result, whereas taking
> the initiative is
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 12:25 +, p...@tabor.com wrote:
> I think Heikki makes a valid point here. I am not a particularly
> strong player (about 1-2 dan european), but I have learned that
> playing defensively is generally detrimental to the final result,
> whereas taking the initiative is more l
I think Heikki makes a valid point here. I am not a particularly strong player (about 1-2 dan european), but I have learned that playing defensively is generally detrimental to the final result, whereas taking the initiative is more likely to lead to a win. If moves close to the existing position
Don Dailey wrote:
I'm not sure I understand - when you say N playouts, do you mean N
visits of that node? Because once you visit a node, you expand it, no
longer doing playouts from that point.
Yes, I mean N visits. In my view, every playout starts at the root.
For instance if e5 is pla
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 00:25 +0100, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > You are right, the d3p version rallied to come from behind and staged
> > an exciting and dramatic comeback:
> >
> > Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
> >1 d3p 2016 77 7521 52% 20000
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:25:10AM +0100, Rémi Coulom wrote:
>
> If you'd like to try a simple pruning scheme that improves playing
> strength on 19x19, then I'd suggest progressive widening. It only works
> in the tree, not in the playouts. You don't need complex patterns for
> progressive wid
Don Dailey wrote:
You are right, the d3p version rallied to come from behind and staged
an exciting and dramatic comeback:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
1 d3p 2016 77 7521 52% 20000%
2 base 2000 75 7721 48% 20160%
- Don
If you'd
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 23:22 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 02:01:29PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> > It looks like 3 is no good:
> >
> > Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
> >1 base 2000 296 199 3 67% 18880%
> >2 d3p 1888 199 296
From: "dhillism...@netscape.net"
> I have a similar rule in my program, but I search for neighbors in a square
> region because I am interested in Knight's moves and Monkey Jumps.
Here's an interesting scenario: A row of stones high on the fifth line, open
> -Original Message-
> From: Heikki Levanto
> To: dailey@gmail.com; computer-go
> Sent: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 5:22 pm
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] 3-4-5 rule
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 02:01:29PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> > It looks like 3 is no good
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 08:01:27PM +0200, Berk Ozbozkurt wrote:
> I think such a change may make engine objectively stronger while making
> it more vulnerable against humans. Even if the human opponent isn't
> aware of the move pruning logic initially, it wouldn't take a lot of
> games to figure
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 02:01:29PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> It looks like 3 is no good:
>
> Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
>1 base 2000 296 199 3 67% 18880%
>2 d3p 1888 199 296 3 33% 20000%
>
> I think I have proven decisively that 3 d
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 13:13 -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
> > Distance 3 could easily play worse - we shall see. Just because a
> > distance 3 move is sometimes good doesn't mean it will make the program
> > play better not throwing those out. If it's RAR
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Distance 3 could easily play worse - we shall see. Just because a
distance 3 move is sometimes good doesn't mean it will make the program
play better not throwing those out. If it's RARELY best, then the
reduced effort and increased focus on (usually) mo
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 12:19 -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
> > Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
> > 1 base 2000 296 199 3 67% 18880%
> > 2 d3p 1888 199 296 3 33% 20000%
> >
> > I think I have proven decisively
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
1 base 2000 296 199 3 67% 18880%
2 d3p 1888 199 296 3 33% 20000%
I think I have proven decisively that 3 doesn't work, it lost 2 out of
the 3 games I played :-)
ok, you go
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 14:23 -0500, Jason House wrote:
I hope you're joking...
It lost twice as many as it won, you're not convinced? :-)
Ok, I'll let it run a few hundred more games just in case it somehow
manages to turn things around.
I agree with
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 14:23 -0500, Jason House wrote:
> I hope you're joking...
It lost twice as many as it won, you're not convinced? :-)
Ok, I'll let it run a few hundred more games just in case it somehow
manages to turn things around.
- Don
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 30, 2008,
I hope you're joking...
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 30, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 12:52 -0500, steve uurtamo wrote:
that's with "or manhattan distance 2" as well? how about 3 or 4?
It looks like 3 is no good:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draw
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 12:52 -0500, steve uurtamo wrote:
> that's with "or manhattan distance 2" as well? how about 3 or 4?
It looks like 3 is no good:
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo. draws
1 base 2000 296 199 3 67% 18880%
2 d3p 1888 199 296 3 33% 200
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 20:01 +0200, Berk Ozbozkurt wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > After 842 games with 19x19 go the version with the 3-4-5 line rule is
> > scoring about 55%
> >
> > I thought it might do better, I think the rule is reasonably sound - but
> > 55% is pretty respectable for such an eas
Don Dailey wrote:
After 842 games with 19x19 go the version with the 3-4-5 line rule is
scoring about 55%
I thought it might do better, I think the rule is reasonably sound - but
55% is pretty respectable for such an easy change and it hardly slows
down the search at all.
Rank Name Elo+
I used distance <= 2 first because it tested better on 9x9. Of course
3 might test better on 19x19 and I will try that now.The error bar
makes it clear that 2 is an improvement, so I will stop the test and try
3 next.
- Don
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 12:52 -0500, steve uurtamo wrote:
> that's wi
that's with "or manhattan distance 2" as well? how about 3 or 4?
s.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
> After 842 games with 19x19 go the version with the 3-4-5 line rule is
> scoring about 55%
>
> I thought it might do better, I think the rule is reasonably sound - but
> 55% i
After 842 games with 19x19 go the version with the 3-4-5 line rule is
scoring about 55%
I thought it might do better, I think the rule is reasonably sound - but
55% is pretty respectable for such an easy change and it hardly slows
down the search at all.
Rank Name Elo+- games score oppo
29 matches
Mail list logo
