On 10/24/06, alain Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 09:41 -0400, Don Dailey wrote: When someone mentioned a position where a pass-alive group should be sacrificed - I wondered if it was also due to PSK issues.
This can also happen with normal rules, if one need a ko
On 10/24/06, alain Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 24 octobre 2006 10:55, Erik van der Werf a écrit: On 10/24/06, alain Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 09:41 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
When someone mentioned a position where a pass-alive group should
Well at least we can be sure that for any two person game, if a position occurs 3 times, at least 2 will have the same player to move ;-)ErikOn 11/8/06,
John Tromp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between PSK and SSK also comes up in chess.Witness these events taking place yesterday in the
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,
On 1/14/07, Nick Apperson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Nick Apperson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Essentially says that the maximum amount of information is proportional to
the 2D surface around it. Even if we live in a many-dimensional world (I
happen to believe we do), the area surrounding it
On 1/19/07, A van Kessel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik van der Werf's thesis was mainly about
transposition table replacement algorihtms, IIRC.
No it wasn't. I think you're confusing me with Dennis Breuker.
see: http://www.xs4all.nl/~breukerd/thesis/index.html
I have some knowledge on
On 1/19/07, Eduardo Sabbatella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
interesting question may be how to efficiently free
memory from
entries that become irrelevant in the continuation
of a game (after
the actual moves made have ruled out portions of the
full game-graph),
but this is probably not an
On 2/10/07, Łukasz Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/10/07, Antoine de Maricourt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is strong interest, I can post the scheme.
Please do.
Since Antoine claims there is only on solution I might as well post mine ;-)
mirroring: [abcdefgh] - [hgfedcba]
rotation:
On 2/10/07, Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
But the question is: Does someone do the opposite, i.e. playing
with the hash values to make then *stronger*?
And then we get another small questions with a dangerous answer...
Just search the archive for BCH construction.
E.
On 2/11/07, Jeff Nowakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 10:59 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
Don't be discouraged please. The big-mouths don't always represent
what the majority thinks.
The opinions expressed for not wanting to move to a forum were polite
and thoughtful. Calling
On 2/12/07, Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik van der Werf wrote:
And then we get another small questions with a
dangerous answer...
1. What makes a question big or small is not a personal
preference, but the number of millions times it happens
during a game.
Can't take a joke
On 2/12/07, Phil G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those doing a lot of bit logic in their computer go programs, you might
be interested in this collection of highly optimized methods for doing
things with bits
(like counting bits sets in parallel and computing the minmum or maximin of
two
Here's a link:
http://erikvanderwerf.tengen.nl/pubdown/bitcounters.c
Have fun,
Erik
On 2/13/07, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik,
I am.
Jim
- Original Message
From: Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tuesday
On 3/7/07, Harri Salakoski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
As reading
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/~vanderwerf/pubdown/solving_go_on_sm
all_boards.pdf
don't understand chapter 5.1. Following 3*3 go game.
Maybe you were not actually reading the above link, but chapter 5 of my
thesis? The thesis
Given your original description I'm not so sure if what you're doing should
actually be called a nearest neighbor method. It may be more like a decision
tree... This said, the curse of dimensionality is a general problem which
can come up with all similarity/distance based approaches using finite
On 3/25/07, forrest curo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this bunch ever get around to the merits of various ways of
representing the board and arriving at moves?
Sure, e.g.:
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2006-December/thread.html#7452
For example, something I suggested the
On 4/4/07, Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course as experts, you should have noticed errors on this newsletter, as
e.g. MoGo developed by the inventors of UCT in hungary :-).
Yes, the text clearly showed that the guy didn't do his homework.
One (far-fetched) explanation might be
On 4/4/07, Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, it would be accurate to play a few thousand games at 7.5 komi,
then a few thousand and 6.5 and compare the white/black win percentage. The
one closest to 50% would be the one to use.
If some are interested by the results, I just
On 4/5/07, Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sylvain, could you run the same test on 7x7 to verify that there the
'correct' komi would be 9 (try 8.5 vs 9.5)? If MoGo wouldn't converge
to 9 we probably shouldn't have much confidence in the generalisation
of the above results for
On 4/6/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 12:43 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alpha/Beta cutoffs only make sense when calling the evaluation
function twice on the exact same position can be guaranteed to
provide
the exact same value. This is obviously not the
On 4/6/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, there is nothing wrong with using alpha beta
search with an evauation function that is not deterministic.
I agree that some limited amount of non-determinism isn't necessarily
a bad thing, and in some cases it actually helps (e.g., when
On 4/10/07, alain Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le lundi 9 avril 2007 14:06, Don Dailey a écrit:
But the point is that
as long as you can provide time and memory you will get improvement
until perfect play is reached.
Is there any proof that heavy player converge toward the same
On 5/11/07, Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much improvement should one see in a UCT program after adding a
transposition table?
Hard to say in general because this depends on how deep the tree goes,
the allocated search time, etc. For shallow trees I suspect that you
might even play
On 5/17/07, Rémi Coulom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Álvaro Begué wrote:
There are many things in the paper that we had never thought of, like
considering the distance to the penultimate move.
That feature improved the effectiveness of progressive widening a lot.
When I had only the distance to
On 5/18/07, Chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When going down a variation the Hash and other Board-State Information like
e.g. the KO-Point are stored on a stack. Starting from the current Top of
Stack the detection goes down and search for the same hash-key and Ko-Point.
Its the Repeated
On 5/18/07, chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Non-capturing moves can create repetition (but there will of course be
captures elsewhere in the cycle).
So far the SuperKOs I have found where a round-trip of KOs.
Maybe the others are just hiding from you ;-)
Fortunately, there are other
On 6/14/07, Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Congratulations to Steenvreeter!
Thx
In the second game against CrazyStone it played like a weak MC-program in the
opening - playing all moves in the center and allowing Crazystone as white to
make two rock solid groups which in my
On 6/14/07, Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Magnus,
Congratulations to Steenvreeter.
Thank you for your analysis. Did you looked at the first game
Steenvreeter-MoGo (MoGo was white)?
I wonder, because MoGo was really happy, estimation always increased, up to
81%, then in one move
On 6/16/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:54 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
So far, Steenvreter has never played on CGOS. I'm very busy with work,
so it will take a while before I have time to put it up for some
games. Also to be honest, I'm not really
On 6/16/07, Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's still a long way off, but I hope to organize a computer Go tournament
at the 2008 Congress here in Portland, Oregon.
Would that be in August? It might not fit well with the events in Beijing.
see:
On 7/8/07, George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would one go about creating a random board position with a uniform
distribution over all legal positions? Is this even possible? I am
not quite sure what I mean by uniform. If one flipped a three sided
coin to determine if each vertex was
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
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
On 7/10/07, chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no finished a plain vanilla 9x9 Suzie-UCT Version. The UCT-tree is
stored in a Hashtable. I am interested who else uses this approach.
Steenvreter has a hashtable.
The reason for using a hashtable was: I was too lazy to implement an
On 7/11/07, chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is an interesting testposition which occured in UCT-Suzie against
Peter-Woitke. If black plays 37 c4 the game is lost by 0.5 points. If Black
passes, white gets a lot of threats. Black can choose between a safe loss,
or some risk and a win.
On 7/12/07, Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For computers special cases matter. Especially for a search based
programm. A search based programm finds every possible special case and
plays into this case, because the opponent does not prevent it.
Are there something as Universal accepted
On 7/21/07, Weimin Xiao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intelligence is the ability to adapt or learn.
A hypothetical almighty oracle that already knows the correct answer
to every question and the right response in every situation would
never have to adapt. Hence evidence of intelligence according
On 7/22/07, Weimin Xiao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A hypothetical almighty oracle that already knows the correct answer
to every question and the right response in every situation would
never have to adapt.
For a moran without a goal, the ability to adapt or to learn is where he
shows his
On 7/22/07, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In theory, there is a perfect girlfriend for me. In practicality, there
is my adapting to make the current girlfriend good enough and better,
with perfection never really obtainable.
Interesting example. Intelligence may be like beauty;
On 7/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can this oracle explain logically how he become one? :)
:-)
That depends on the domain. If the domain is Go-world you would not
even be able to phrase that question. If the domain would be the world
in which you live, the correct answer
On 7/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Erik is wrong even in theory. An arguement can fault in two
aspects:assumption and logic. His arguement faults on the former, even his
logic is iron clad. He assumed the existence of an Oracle, which we all know
is incorrect.
'We'
On 7/23/07, chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a Phd in statistics. But Bayesian methods were at that time a
non-topic. I know the general principles, but I want to learn a little bit
more about the latest developments in the field. Bayes is now chic, there
are many books about it. I assume
On 7/26/07, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of months back I wrote an article on why I believe UCT with
random playouts (as opposed to heavy playouts) will never give a strong
computer go program. I've finally got it finished, edited and published:
Hi Antti,
I had a quick look at your numbers. Maybe I misunderstood something,
but at first glance there appears to be a parity effect (an even
number of 100% blunder moves always get it right).
How do the statistics look if the game length is odd?
If it matters, maybe you should sample over a
On 8/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I organized side event Predict Professinal Moves at
European Go Congress 2007. I made a brief and shallow
summary (without any analysis) of the results and decided
to post it here---in case someone is actually interested ;).
The side
On 8/16/07, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calculating the mean of a stream of numbers [1] is easy: just keep track
of the sum and the count, and divide at the end. But what about the
median?
I think I always need to buffer at least half the numbers
A counter for each unique value
On 10/10/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In GO, threats tend to be very indirect and distant, at least from the
point of view of a naive search algorithm and this is a real killer to
the idea - my feeling is that null move in GO is not workable.
I have the same feeling. Some years ago
Yes I'm here :-) Sorry to have to disappoint you though, I have not
yet found enough time to work on 19x19. For now the throne rightfully
belongs to Mogo.
Erik
On 10/11/07, Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we also count on Steenvreter for this 19x19 smack-down? You out
there, Erik?
On Nov 13, 2007 5:35 PM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 11:23 AM, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are pathological cases where this has to loop many times, flood
filling
the one liberty to a long chain of stones, but those should be rare.
This was my
On Nov 13, 2007 6:40 PM, Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No need to get turned off on that. In most cases you don't need to
shake that much. Remember you only need to get the new stone and its
direct opponent neighbours connected to a liberty. There's plenty of
tricks for early
On Nov 27, 2007 1:58 PM, Stuart A. Yeates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you give us a quick reference for exactly _which_ Euler numbers
you're using? Wikipedia has three separate ones and the MathWorld site
a similiar number.
I cannot speak for Don, but in the work on solving Go I calculated
On Dec 5, 2007 5:01 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 9:33 AM, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Look for Realization Probability Search.
Oh, thanks! I knew it was too natural to be original. Well, I actually
thought about it around 1998, so it might have
On Dec 10, 2007 4:35 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In GO, this is probably a more serious problem.
Yes, there is no such thing as an irreversible move in go.
Well there is the opening move... (unless suicide is legal you can
never recreate the empty board).
I think we are
stuck
On Dec 10, 2007 5:23 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 11:05 AM, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or simply don't use superko. Normal rules work fine with only some
minimal knowledge of the last move. Long cycles are not an issue
because they may repeat multiple
On Dec 10, 2007 6:07 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like even under non-superko rules, something special happens if a
position is repeated, which means that a program should know the entire
history of the game, or it may accidentally repeat a previous position, even
if it
On Dec 11, 2007 4:00 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 6:48 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Go however, even if the fundamental game is unchanged you may be
playing illegal moves if you are not aware of the superko situation
On Dec 11, 2007 2:18 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is some
question about how you define a position (a board state, or a board
configuration i.e. SSK or PSK) but you can nitpick if you want and say
that superko has nothing to do with positions repeating but I think when
This should help:
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2007-February/thread.html#8653
Erik
On Dec 19, 2007 5:58 PM, Rémi Coulom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have not had time to study it in details, but I found this:
http://fragrieu.free.fr/zobrist.pdf
A Group-Theoretic Zobrist
I'd propose something simpler:
No time is deducted for pass.
With this rule your program will only loose time when it absolutely
has to respond to the opponents move. In most games the winning
program can simply play until it has a sufficient number of
unconditionally alive stones on the board
On Jan 2, 2008 4:18 PM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've also considered the exact opposite strategy... When losing a game, aim
to stress the opponent's time management (since it's the highest probability
of victory). That would include underhanded tricks like filling my own
eyes.
On Jan 2, 2008 5:54 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik van der Werf wrote:
I'd propose something simpler:
No time is deducted for pass.
With this rule your program will only loose time when it absolutely
has to respond to the opponents move. In most games the winning
On Jan 16, 2008 10:42 PM, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can not think of any situation where filling a one-point eye would be a
correct move (provided that it is a real eye and not a false one).
Can anyone come with concrete examples?
Sure, for example with the following shape
IIRC Ken Chen did something similar with the number of stones on
boundaries. I'm not sure, but there may be something in the extended
articles originating from JCIS 2003. You may also be interested in my
article on estimating potential territory (which shows that if you
want to apply influence
On Jan 22, 2008 11:14 AM, Petri Pitkanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
9x9 is not Go
At some point in history the common board size was 17x17.
Are you suggesting that 17x17 wasn't Go either?
In the future, when humans are consistently defeated by computers on
19x19 and the remaining players move up
On Jan 22, 2008 2:50 PM, Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22-jan-08, at 11:21, Don Dailey wrote:
Hi Mark,
I think it's Petri who was the condescending one.
Well, you could see it as condescending if someone pooh-poohs 9x9 Go.
But then one should argue that if you'd want to. But
On Jan 22, 2008 4:08 PM, Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What irritated me was what I referred
to as 'putting words in someone elses mouth'. It feels like Erik is
purposefully trying to offend, both in his answer to Petri and in his later
answer to me. I think there's no need to try to
:-)
I do not know what the long-term effects on the game of Go would be of
an entity with super-human playing strength. Humans tend to have funny
reactions when it comes to computers performing tasks formerly
believed to have required intelligence...
In any case, I know some people already play
On Jan 22, 2008 5:54 PM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll admit that I was skeptical that monte carlo would scale to 19x19, and
clearly I was wrong. Maybe I misremember the early debates, but I think the
argument from the UCT/MC side was that fast pure-random playouts were
scalable
On Jan 23, 2008 1:47 PM, Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik van der Werf wrote:
You may also be interested in my
article on estimating potential territory
I am. Can you post a link, please.
sure, it's all at:
http://erikvanderwerf.tengen.nl/publications.html
My thesis
On Jan 23, 2008 2:45 PM, ivan dubois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I say a minimax solver, I mean a program witch returns a random move
UNTIL it has completed its search, as I explained in a previous post.
A plain minimax solver (without enhancements like iterative deepening)
doesn't return
Hi Guillaume,
I think we talked about this before, but others may be interested as
well. In my opinion the ICML paper on Rave has several weaknesses.
It's been a while since I read the paper, but here are some I
remember:
(1) They compared Rave to plain UCT. If they would have compared it to
a
Hi Sylvain,
Thanks for your reply! How do you like your new job? Do you miss CompGo? ;-)
On Wed, Feb 6, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) They compared Rave to plain UCT. If they would have compared it to
a more sophisticated implementation (like the best Mogo
Hi Hideki,
Your results look similar to those of Mogo as reported in their icml
paper. When you ran this experiment, did you use anything like FPU or
progressive widening, or did you use Levente's original design which
always selects unvisited moves first?
Regards,
Erik
On Wed, Feb 6, 2008 at
Hmm, sounds like I should experiment some more. Thanks!
Erik
On Thu, Feb 7, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Hideki Kato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Erik,
My program is very based on MoGo's report and the paper. Yes, I
used FPU of 1.15.
-Hideki
Erik van der Werf: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Hideki
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
9.5pt komi is unreasonable. I agree with Don that perfect game value
will probably turn out to be 7pts, though I'm keeping an open mind that
it may be 6pts. I'd be surprised if it was 8pts, though that could just
mean
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Jaonary Rabarisoa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
After a long search on the computer go mailing list archive and reading and
reading again the paper of Gelly and Silver (ICML 2007) I didn't find
answers to my question.
In this paper they introduce a way to
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Jaonary Rabarisoa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if I understand, at each node we need to play every possible action once
at first, even many of these actions are surely non optimal. And this may be
slow if the number of the possible action at this node is huge.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Jaonary Rabarisoa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So to sum up we have the following pseudo code :
at a given node :
- find the child (among the visited child only) that maximizes de UCT-RAVE
value
- if this maximum UCT-RAVE value is less than FPU value and if there
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a computer go forum?
http://www.computer-go.jp/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That always irks me when I hear this kind of thing. The world is basically
windows chauvinistic and it's common to find little consideration given to
any other platform.
Did you know that you can create your own linux
AM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
In what way would computer Go need to evolve?
Erik
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:50 PM, David Doshay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someday computer Go will evolve enough to have enough trust for
remote computing. But not today, unfortunately.
Cheers,
David
On 17
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Erik van der Werf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you know that you can create your own linux environment without having
to touch the machine you will be using?
I have DSL-N (Damn Small Linux
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Erik van der Werf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you know that you can create your own linux
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:07 PM, steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i don't think that it's known to be exptime-complete.
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/cgt/hard.html
E.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Basti Weidemyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would you have done in a case like this? :)
Inspect the log file.
Erik
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
She was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it
was dead lost.
I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have
put up more of a fight :-)
If Basti is correct that
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Jason House
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Some time ago I observed that kgsgtp does not tell my program
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Gunnar Farnebäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik van der Werf wrote:
For the final position in the game record any strong human player will
tell you that the game is clearly over. No points are left to be
gained and the result is obvious.
Actually there's one
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Martin Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
did not realize that his program, even with a large tree, would not be
able to recognize the seki. I knew of course that the original Mogo
playouts had this problem, but I thought all strong programs had
solved it by
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Boon wrote:
Not an expert on AB-search or UCT search but there's a subtle
difference I think. In AB search, if some processors have been
searching in a branch that is subsequently cut off, the work is 100%
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:57 AM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In late september there is a computer go contest in Taizhou, with cash
prizes. They might cancel this contest due to lack of participation, so if
you are thinking of going, please let them know today or tomorrow.
David
Maybe these are the same?
http://gobase.org/9x9/
Erik
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- There had been a TV program of professional 9x9 Go for years (some
member of this list have the records of the games played in this
program). Takemiya 9p and
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Hideki Kato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Fotland: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At this point I think everyone would agree that E5 is the optimal first move
for black on 9x9.
Some Japanese professionals say E5 is 1 to 2 points loss, though komi
is 6.5 and with Japanese
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that
such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low
but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so
I'm not in
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd have some preference for playing the decisive game with komi = 6.5,
but apparently thats not possible on KGS. I think with komi = 7.5 white
is scoring very high (too high?) in the top games.
Last year (when the
From all we know so far it is most likely that perfect komi is 7.0.
Even numbers lik 6.0 and 8.0 are unlikely because they always require
a seki with an odd number of shared liberties (in all optimal lines!).
Since IMO the first player should have a chance to win it seems
natural to set the komi
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Markus Enzenberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:
To do that, just point your regular cgos client to trac.gnugo.org,
port 6867.
what rules does GNU Go use in the 6x6 analysis?
I connected Fuego configured with CGOS rules. After a while it
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had heard somewhere that there are some who believe 8.0 is the right
komi for 9x9 Chinese. I personally believed for a long time it was 7.0
based on statistical data of games.However that can be misleading.
Do you
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Gunnar Farnebäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At http://trac.gnugo.org/6x6.sgf you can find an ongoing analysis of
6x6.
Nice! The main line looks correct.
It even has an interesting 59-ply deep variation which I don't
remember seeing before.
Erik
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:47 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
much more common.There were just a few games that used 6.5 komi
because when I first started CGOS I had set 6.5 by mistake
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
