As for other things we'd like to see improved, we could build a list. My pet
peeve is the KGS score estimator, which is often wildly wrong. I've heard
complaints about the implementation of the rules, and some have argued that
it is not terribly bot-friendly.
A good SE is a terribly difficult
2010/1/19 terry mcintyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com:
( I recall a pro making
such an observation; I was willing to accept his expertise on the
matter. )
Any pro making such a comment at move 10 is just grand-standing. I
have experienced pros making such comments too. You can let such a
remark
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Stefan Kaitschick
stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de wrote:
2010/1/19 terry mcintyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com:
( I recall a pro making
such an observation; I was willing to accept his expertise on the matter.
)
Any pro making such a comment at move 10 is just
Petr Baudis wrote:
This seems like not very productive line of argumentation unless
preceded with more exact definitions of strong.
My only claim is that it is a hard problem. That is unobjectionable
no matter how you define strong (obviously: random strong perfect)
I can't understand why
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:39:59PM +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Petr Baudis wrote:
Actually, there is a thread about exactly this on fuego-devel
In fact it is not exactly this it is a different approach.
The post in fuego-devel tries to determine the status of each
point of the board.
Wouldn't one find the correct komi by at worst binary search among komi
values?
2010/1/21 Petr Baudis pa...@ucw.cz
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:39:59PM +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Petr Baudis wrote:
Actually, there is a thread about exactly this on fuego-devel
In fact it is not
When SE fails, it is often blatantly obvious: a group is dead or in seki, but
judged to be alive; or vice versa.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Hi
1. Just a small precision first:
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
Terry McIntyre wrote:
... My pet peeve is the KGS score estimator, which is often wildly
wrong
As explained by others a strong SE for ALL positions is equivalent
to a strong program.
This is only true if you replace the word
Hi!
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:39:31PM +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
As explained by others a strong SE for ALL positions is equivalent
to a strong program.
This is only true if you replace the word “strong” by “perfect”. It is
trivial, that a perfect evaluation function gives a
sorry, i should have been more clear.
an SE can't be any smarter than a computer player, because it could
otherwise easily simulate a computer player, as described. would it
be slower? yes, by a constant factor that is bounded by the
boardsize. this simulation could be completely paralellized,
Steve,
I wouldagree with you that writing a good score estimator is extremely
difficult, probably as difficult as writing a computer player.
However, your argument of equivalence (if that is how I understand it) does
not follow. Just because you can score any position does not mean you can
Christian Nentwich wrote:
Steve,
I wouldagree with you that writing a good score estimator is extremely
difficult, probably as difficult as writing a computer player.
However, your argument of equivalence (if that is how I understand it)
does not follow. Just because you can score any
Terry McIntyre wrote:
... My pet peeve is the KGS score estimator, which is often wildly
wrong
As explained by others a strong SE for ALL positions is equivalent
to a strong program.
Instead one might ask for appropriate partial SE:
in many positions the partial SE gives an estimates;
in
It's all about expectations -- at this point, we don't expect any SE to say at
move 10: This is a half-point win for white. ( I recall a pro making such an
observation; I was willing to accept his expertise on the matter. )
But if it says at move 160: White wins by 5 points, it should be in the
2010/1/19 terry mcintyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com:
( I recall a pro making
such an observation; I was willing to accept his expertise on the matter. )
Any pro making such a comment at move 10 is just grand-standing. I
have experienced pros making such comments too. You can let such a
remark pass
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:41:17PM -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
It's all about expectations -- at this point, we don't expect any SE to say
at move 10: This is a half-point win for white. ( I recall a pro making
such an observation; I was willing to accept his expertise on the matter. )
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Dave Dyer dd...@real-me.net wrote:
Back up a bit - what's your primary interest ? I can readily believe that
not many near blind play Go on the internet now, but what makes you believe
a properly supportive server would bring them out of the woods, or that
(i) IGS is derivation of NNGS, which is free software (GPLv2)! It has
even seen some slight development in past few years.
I don't think that's correct - NNGS was a functional copy of IGS created
by duplicating the published (telnet based) interfaces. It eventually
was open sourced before it
computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org wrote on 18-01-2010 11:34:52:
(i) IGS is derivation of NNGS, which is free software (GPLv2)! It has
even seen some slight development in past few years.
I don't think that's correct - NNGS was a functional copy of IGS created
by duplicating the
computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org wrote on 18-01-2010 09:21:43:
Back up a bit - what's your primary interest ? I can readily
believe that not many near blind play Go on the internet now, but
what makes you believe a properly supportive server would bring them
out of the woods, or that
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 05:43:34PM +0100, Adriaan van Kessel wrote:
computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org wrote on 18-01-2010 11:34:52:
(ii) NNGS might be used as possible base of a modern go server. The
obvious advantage is that _right now_ you have something that you can
(in theory)
computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org wrote on 18-01-2010 18:16:28:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 05:43:34PM +0100, Adriaan van Kessel wrote:
computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org wrote on 18-01-2010 11:34:52:
(ii) NNGS might be used as possible base of a modern go server.
The
obvious advantage
If accessibility is the only criterion, a client would do the trick; it would
need an open protocol.
It's been a bit of an inconvenience that KGS does not publish an open-protocol
interface.
As for other things we'd like to see improved, we could build a list. My pet
peeve is the KGS score
Even though KGS is not open, you can still reverse engineer it, right? Why
not create an accessible web interface to KGS?
terry mcintyre wrote:
If accessibility is the only criterion, a client would do the trick;
it would need an open protocol.
It's been a bit of an inconvenience that KGS
If the protocol isn't open, it can be changed. It is believed that wms did just
that to frustrate open-source clients. There may be some justification to his
argument that buggy clients were causing problems with his server.
From: Michael Williams michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
Even though KGS
In message 4b54a0f7.1090...@gmail.com, Michael Williams
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com writes
Even though KGS is not open, you can still reverse engineer it,
right? Why not create an accessible web interface to KGS?
Obvious answer: because with the next KGS server upgrade, your client
would
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:57:11PM -0500, Michael Williams wrote:
Even though KGS is not open, you can still reverse engineer it, right?
Why not create an accessible web interface to KGS?
I have been doing that with http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~pasky/cgoban-h/.
It's a huge amount of work to do _and_
As for other things we'd like to see improved, we could build a list. My pet
peeve is the KGS score estimator, which is often wildly wrong.
an SE can't be any smarter than a computer player that runs in the
amount of time that you're willing to wait for the SE to calculate*.
so don't expect
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 06:21:40PM -0500, steve uurtamo wrote:
As for other things we'd like to see improved, we could build a list. My pet
peeve is the KGS score estimator, which is often wildly wrong.
an SE can't be any smarter than a computer player that runs in the
amount of time that
Le 18/01/2010 à 18:37, terry mcintyre a écrit :
My pet peeve is the KGS score estimator, which is often wildly wrong.
The best thing to do would be to remove the score estimator which
prevent people from thinking.
I bet there would be much less stupid chat during games whithout it :)
Alain.
When I say the SE is wildly off, I'm not referring to positions which only a
pro could evaluate but positions which a double-digit kyu player could
correctly evaluate.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Your point is obvious but that's a horrible proof since there are usually more
than one legal moves from which to chose (that means it takes more time).
steve uurtamo wrote:
As for other things we'd like to see improved, we could build a list. My pet
peeve is the KGS score estimator, which is
32 matches
Mail list logo
