At 23:17 03/01/2007, Don wrote:
David,
I thought of another way to put it which I think, in a way,
defines the difference in the rule-sets.
You are playing a game, and you think the opponent group
is dead. But you are not 100 percent sure.
What do you do? Chinese puts the emphasis on the
I assume that cannot be captured by the opponent means that the opponent,
playing first, cannot capture it. I accept that it is unclear whether this
opponent is the actual one present in the game, or a hypothetical competent
one.
In an unresolved semeai it is not clear who is the one trying
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tapani
Raiko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I assume that cannot be captured by the opponent means that the opponent,
playing first, cannot capture it. I accept that it is unclear whether this
opponent is the actual one present in the game, or a hypothetical competent
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 08:01 +, Tom Cooper wrote:
At 23:17 03/01/2007, Don wrote:
David,
I thought of another way to put it which I think, in a way,
defines the difference in the rule-sets.
You are playing a game, and you think the opponent group
is dead. But you are not 100
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Petri
Pitkanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
All these are rather imaginary problems really. How many times you end
arguing about the outcome of a game at the club?
I rarely do. But 15-kyu players do; they generally ask a stronger
player for help.
This year, as
In the diagram, black has a chance to make a live group but
only if white plays stupidly.
there's a nice rule of thumb that says that you should only
play moves whose outcome results in your opponent playing
*what you think is the best move*. there's simply nothing
more irritating than someone
steve uurtamo wrote:
there's simply nothing
more irritating than someone attempting an unreasonable
invasion at the end of a game in order to try to turn a loss
into a win.
I try this during the opening, the middle game, and the
endgame. The only difference is in YOUR perception.
--
robert
I try this during the opening, the middle game, and the
endgame. The only difference is in YOUR perception.
:)
fair enough.
s.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed
to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not
require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly
passes should be awarded a point for his
Oh ... I should have been more complete ...
I think that the things said below should be the case when the
tournament is not announced as playing under Chinese rules,
as are all KGS computer tournaments. I do think that the TD
gets to set the rules that they prefer.
I just hope that someday the
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:53 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed
to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not
require answer, the more skilled player i.e
OK, now I see your perspective ... the invader has the right to
ask the defender to prove their skill, which I must say seems
very much like a gamble to me, but should not be punished
if their attempt is refuted. As such, I claim only that in this
case we have to assume that it will be the norm
Kinda like how the discussion is on this mundane stuff instead of the
interesting stuff?
On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:16 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned
below is applied to computer programs,
On 4, Jan 2007, at 1:37 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I'm certainly not interested in winning
points that way and would take no delight in it.
I do not take delight in picking up the points, but in my
feeling that this shows true understanding of the reality
of what is on the board. Whenever it
Thanks Chris! that's all from me this time ...
;^)
Cheers,
David
On 4, Jan 2007, at 1:46 PM, Chris Fant wrote:
Kinda like how the discussion is on this mundane stuff instead of the
interesting stuff?
On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:16 -0800, David
The discussion isn't mundane, it has helped me understand the rule-set
differences even better.
I also think it's an important discussion for the future of GO, I
believe it's generally understood that Japanese rules is traditional,
but the future is Chinese - that's the direction things
I'm done too ;-)
- Don
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:58 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
Thanks Chris! that's all from me this time ...
;^)
Cheers,
David
On 4, Jan 2007, at 1:46 PM, Chris Fant wrote:
Kinda like how the discussion is on this mundane stuff instead of the
interesting
Those of you looking to wring more performance out of your
MonteCarlo Go programs might be interested in this article about
installing Linux on the Sony PlayStation 3 and programming the
6 available SPE coprocessors on its Cell cpu:
Please stop this confusion.
Chinese scoring != Chinese rules
Japanese scoring != Japanese rules
Moreover, both Japanese and Chinese rules are to be considered
traditional rules.
E.
On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think it's an important discussion for the future of GO,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don
Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
snip
I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap
game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one
was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously
it doesn't
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 23:28 +0100, Erik van der Werf wrote:
Chinese scoring != Chinese rules
Japanese scoring != Japanese rules
So you can play with Chinese rules, but score
the Japanese way?
Please explain the difference so that I can use the
correct terminology.
- Don
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap
game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one
was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously
it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the
Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud might be cheaper @ $0.10 per instance-hour
consumed.
doesn't the 'amazing amazon elastic waistband' require you to write
all of your code using windows-based hooks? that kind've
turns me off.
s.
__
Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud might be cheaper @ $0.10 per instance-hour
consumed.
doesn't the 'amazing amazon elastic waistband' require you to write
all of your code using windows-based hooks? that kind've turns me off.
You may be confusing with Amazon Simple Storage Service (which
On 1/5/07, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The playstation multiprocessing looks very different: you get 1 general
purpose CPU and 6 specialized CPUs. Their key feature is they have 256K
of local memory - this is not cache, it is all the memory they can
access. Not useful for UCT designs
I was going to avoid more postings ... but it seems that any beauty
of omission that might be achieved would be offset by the rudeness
of not answering specifically posed questions.
Answers embedded below.
Cheers,
David
On 4, Jan 2007, at 4:29 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04
How much time should a program spend on each move?
If my program has t milliseconds left to use in a game, and there are
an estimated m moves left on the board (e.g., this many vacant
spaces), one reasonable choice is t / m.
In practice, this seems to spend too much time on early moves,
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 22:04 -0800, Peter Drake wrote:
How much time should a program spend on each move?
If my program has t milliseconds left to use in a game, and there are
an estimated m moves left on the board (e.g., this many vacant
spaces), one reasonable choice is t / m.
Ok, since you broke the truce so will I :-)
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:55 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
I guess we will just have to leave it as a disagreement about what
is important and what is mundane. I do not find the question of
correct endgame reading to be mundane.
What does this have to
The PS3 is a bit starved for memory - 512 megabytes, half seems to be for
video, half for the main CPU.
I just got a PS3 and hope to do some exploration with Linux programming. My own
personal supercomputer :D
Terry McIntyre
UNIX for hire
software development / systems administration /
2007/1/4, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, this inhibits the application of skill. A silly invasion that
wastes time is punished in all rules sets, but in Chinese it may not
be silly if it doesn't waste time - Japanese rules unfairly defines
these moves as silly.
It is silly if opponents
How much time should a program spend on each move?
I think this is one of the most important and also difficult questions in
game programming. Much effort is done to speed up the node-count by 10%, but
a good time control is a much more effective speedup.
If my program has t milliseconds
32 matches
Mail list logo
