One way to estimate the scalability against human players is to start with a
program with a well established raking in with human games. Then
reduce the simulation time and see how the ranking drops.
AOL now offers
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 18:38 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
I am afraid today a postal chess game is a computer analyst
against another computer analyst. An interesting challenge,
no doubt, but that has little to do with chess.
I don't agree with this. I have heard it can improve your real
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don
Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I believe humans play much stronger too at those time controls. Unless
of course they are playing many games and are not really focused on any
particular game.
The unless above is very important.
When I play on a turn-based
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 17:25 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don
Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I believe humans play much stronger too at those time controls. Unless
of course they are playing many games and are not really focused on any
particular game.
The
masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:14:49 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 10:37 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
From my experience, DGS is not comparable to correspondence chess; it
isn't anywhere near that competivive. It is generally a way to play a
casual game over a longish period of time.
So it might be interesting to use a monte-carlo
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
uucgs.
could probably be written as a small wrapper around
uucp over ethernet. :)
At that pace you may just do it by hand ... sending the
move by email.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind
masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster
- Original Message
From: Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:33:59 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] scalability study
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:03:09PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
My program wouldn't do well as it would not understand dame and other
Japanese complexities.
It should not do too badly - if you play by the chinese rules, you will
do quite well by the japanese as well. Perhaps some of the opponents
That still doesn't deal with dame though. Dame points always come out
as not owned much by either side.The algorithm might be to do a
simple test for dame and if it looks like a dame point and the ownership
map is close to neutral, then it's probably a dame point. Maybe dame
isn't that
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 10:45 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
After throwing out the low and high ratings the top 5 players average
about 132 ELO per doubling and the bottom 5 average an increase of
about 210 per doubling.
...
I suspect Lazarus at
the highest level I tested is within a few
Someone just reminded me of the scalability study I did a few months
back and I reported that I would continue to run it for perhaps a few
more weeks.
I did run about 20% more games, but the data was quite useful because
it increased the number of games sampled for the highest levels. I had
These are very interesting results. Thanks for doing all this work.
- Dave Hillis
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:34 pm
Subject: [computer-go] scalability study - final results
Someone
Hi Don,
This is a very interesting study!
Sylvain
2007/6/25, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Someone just reminded me of the scalability study I did a few months
back and I reported that I would continue to run it for perhaps a few
more weeks.
I did run about 20% more games, but the data was
Don,
That's exciting! If Lazarus with heavy playouts can achieve within a few
hundred points of perfect play on a 9x9 board, in less than 4 hours total game
time, then it should do rather well on such turn-based servers as the Dragon Go
Server. A 30-day clock should be more than adequate.
Hi Don,
Thanks for doing this valueable work.
Where can we get the data? I am interested with it.
Cai Qiang
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 15:07 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
Don,
That's exciting! If Lazarus with heavy playouts can achieve within a
few hundred points of perfect play on a 9x9 board, in less than 4
hours total game time, then it should do rather well on such
turn-based servers as the Dragon
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 06:50 +0800, elife wrote:
Hi Don,
Thanks for doing this valueable work.
Where can we get the data? I am interested with it.
Cai Qiang
I put everything on that web site:
Just go to http://www.greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/
and you can get the games from
After throwing out the low and high ratings the top 5 players average
about 132 ELO per doubling and the bottom 5 average an increase of
about 210 per doubling.
...
I suspect Lazarus at
the highest level I tested is within a few hundred ELO points of
perfect play. It's still a long way
19 matches
Mail list logo
