On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:05 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
I do not think that any apology is needed. The length of the game was
due only to a setting you have that is totally appropriate for a
Chinese rules tournament game.
I don't agree with this at all. Is it appropriate under Japanese
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 07:40 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Of course there is some questions
about how long Moore's law will hold.
If you are referring to CPU speed doubling (as opposed to transistor
count), then that has been over for at least 5 years.
The Free Lunch Is Over: A Fundamental Turn
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 01:35 +0300, Dmitry Kamenetsky wrote:
Actually this is all I ever wanted! Now if only I could convince the
whole Computer Go community to use it, but that seems unlikely :)
Smiley aside, wouldn't it be more constructive to do as somebody else
suggested, and use the email
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 them big-mouths is uncalled for. It's also
quite
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 16:09 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
I know that the author of D has not emphasized optimizations
but I think he is now that it has reached version 1.0 and
beyond.
I've been following D via their newsgroups. The 1.0 version was a
joke. The long wait and big coming out party
On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 00:43 -0400, Jason House wrote:
No const - C++ style const for functions doesn't exist - both const
functions and const function parameters
Const is one of the major features being worked on. There's huge
threads about it in the newsgroup :) Last I read there are going
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:17 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
How does Japanese make any difference?
Because the vast majority of games use Japanese rules on KGS, I think
many players do not notice if they are playing Chinese rules. If they
then find out that dame is worth 1 point, they may feel cheated
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 17:36 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote:
I have written a short report on yesterday's bot tournament on KGS, it
is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/25/index.html
From the writeup:
CrazyStone has achieved an implausible 1k rating on KGS.
Yes, very implausible. It has only
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 22:19 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Did something happen that unfairly caused the player to lose on time?
No, but the games were absolute time games where CrazyStone was often in
a losing position but ended up winning on time. The endgame in Go takes
a long time but is mostly
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 08:50 -0700, Dave Dyer wrote:
On the other hand, all the rules arguments in Go are really
only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary
situations.
That ignores the very real problems that many beginners have trying to
understand the logic behind Japanese
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 19:46 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Anyone else have an opinion on this?
Sure. I disagree with Gunnar's statement that the engine shouldn't know
who is playing or their strengths. Maybe the engine will want to change
the way it plays based on the rank. Or maybe between Don's
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 18:14 +0200, chrilly wrote:
Chess/Go... can be played in an autistic way. There is no need for an
opponent model.
Ah, an opponent model. Where's the poision?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes#qt0250635
Too much rock, paper, scissors in poker for my tastes.
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 18:03 -0700, Joshua Shriver wrote:
Are there any really simple engines out there that know just enough to
play a legal game of Go? Preferably C, Perl or Java?
Have a look at GoGui and the included gtpdummy engine, which plays a
random game. It's Java based. If you write
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 13:01 +0100, Tom Cooper wrote:
Any variety of poker is sufficiently complicated that it is very difficult to
find an optimal mixed strategy, and therefore it is, as far as my
interest in it
is concerned, very different from Roshambo.
I followed the link to Iocaine that
On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 17:33 -0400, Joshua Shriver wrote:
Found this link and thought you all might find it interesting.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5552
Umm, this article was linked to and discussed heavily here within the
past week:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 01:16 -0700, Phil G wrote:
As a community, I believe we can improve SGF by extending the
specification slightly to allow points to also be encoded in
standard coordinates and depreciated, admittedly slowly, the use of
the old coordinate system. We already see Go programs
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 08:42 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
GTP pretty much replace GMP.A lot of resistance because GMP was the
defacto standard at the time. It would have been foolish to insist on
being backwards compatible.
GTP was a huge change in protocol with clear benefits. What's being
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 11:54 +0100, Edward de Grijs wrote:
Hi all,
For CGOS 19x19 I prefer a short time control (10min/game) because:
1) More quickly a more accurate rating can be established.
I agree with Don. 10 minutes sudden death is brutally short for 19x19.
You are limiting
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 15:59 +0100, Edward de Grijs wrote:
Hi, maybe so, but can you name some programs which cannot cope
with 10 minutes thinking time for 19x19?
I'm working on my own program, and I don't want to be limited to 10
minutes for 19x19. I'll let others speak about their own
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:30 +0100, Lars Schäfers wrote:
By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;)
What formal and automatable Japanese ruleset are you proposing? A
computer implementation would also lend credibility.
-Jeff
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:55 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Yes, I agree with your points.Well behaved on CGOS means that your
bot will resign as soon as it knows it's losing.
I think when a bot should resign is a matter of personal preference. I
myself prefer to see games played out
Ok, this is my last post on this topic for a while, promise.
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 17:21 -0500, Jason House wrote:
I think having a way to generate a lot of games to test this style of
behavior is helpful. I really care little about the rules, except
that it provides a mechanism to encourage
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 19:45 -0500, Joshua Shriver wrote:
Wish computer-go had a google search :)
Put this in Google's search box:
site:http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/ foobar
Of course, replace foobar with your search terms.
-Jeff
___
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 17:24 +0100, Robert Jasiek wrote:
I have played 10 9x9, 6.5 komi, 5 min. games against MoGo release 3
using GoGui's command line path\GoGui\MoGo\mogo.exe under Vista
Ultimate 32b on a Core2Duo E6600. The typical mogo.exe's usage of both
processors is ca. 48.5% - 50.5%,
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 15:29 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
I am considering to implement Fischer time on CGOS
How are you going to deal with keeping the games on a fixed schedule?
-Jeff
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 10:30 -0800, Dave Dyer wrote:
CGOS uses Chinese scoring with play-outs so that we can get fully
automated scoring with no chance of errors.
No chance of errors is vacuously true. Errors, if any, were made
in the playout leading to the final state.
errors is probably
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:55 +, Nick Wedd wrote:
The event was notable for unjustified resignations.
Seems strange so many bots had resignation trouble. Looks like beta
code. Probably in response to the Please have your bot resign, for
your own good thread?
-Jeff
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 20:31 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Although it's not on the graph itself, Gnugo-3.7.11 level 10 is set to
be 1800.0 ELO.
On the web page it says you are using --min-level 8 --max-level 8.
Each data point in the x axis represent a doubling in power. There are
13 doublings
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:41 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
This is in response to a few posts about the self-test effect in ELO
rating tests.
[...]
So my assertion is that scalability based on sound principles is more or
less universal with perhaps a small amount of self-play distortion, but
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 12:28 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Regarding use GTP for the CGOS communication protocol:
At one point I actually seriously considered using GTP as the
communication protocol for CGOS.It seemed rather cool that it might
be possible to hook up a program directly without
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 18:36 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote:
If I had the ability to change the way the game-end protocol is
implemented, I would do so. I do not know what I would implement, but
it might well include Fisher time. However, the implementation is not
under my control. My problem is
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:14 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
But I still categorically object to the stance that it's the bots or the
programmers fault that it forfeits on time. As log as lag is not
compensated there is no way to avoid time losses, even if the bot always
moves instantly.
The 10k refers to ten thousand playouts, not rank, and yes it's 9x9. As
for open source UCT, off the top of my head there's libego (C++) and
Orego (Java).
-Jeff
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 12:14 -0700, Carter Cheng wrote:
I assume this implies that there arent any open-source basic-UCT bots which
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the
best rulesets for humans.
Ok, tired old topic, tired old response: Japanese rules aren't good for
beginners. They also aren't good at resolving disputes (genuine
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 14:21 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote:
I would also appreciate views on my proposal to change the time system
used for these events, so that instead of say 18 minutes absolute time,
they will use 18 minutes plus 20 stones/20 seconds Canadian overtime.
What happens if you get
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
It's a shame Fischer Timing is not available. A small Fischer
increment of 1 or 2 seconds would do the job nicely.
It doesn't solve the problem of two programs that don't pass. You can't
keep to a fixed schedule if you keep on allowing
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:29 -0400, steve uurtamo wrote:
without vast captures of territory, someone
will either violate the superko rule or make an
illegal move before lots of time passes.
It depends on how the bots play. What if you get two bots that each
insist on playing in the opponent's
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 00:00 +0200, Basti Weidemyr wrote:
If dame was filled, I see no reason why this would not be possible to
implement as a cleanup phase on go-servers, like the one used for new
zealand and chinese rules. Do you? It would be the human-adaption of
the
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:39 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
And, of course, once a beginner understands life and death in this
manner, playing out disputed groups is the most natural way to determine
the life-or-death status of a group. (And, I submit, the best way no
matter what ruleset you're
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 08:54 -0700, Peter Drake wrote:
I was planning to teach Japanese rules (because that's what the books
use).
Most of the books say nothing at all about how to handle disputes. They
teach an informal territory ruleset. That's a major flaw in the books
that should not be
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:12 -0700, Peter Drake wrote:
Eventually, sure -- but I'd like them to have a few games under their
belts before I bring up the issue of different versions of the rules.
Ok, then play some 9x9 games with area scoring rules as Dave Devos
suggested. I was making the
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 19:41 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
I teach informal territory rules with virtual play out. However in
practice, I should note, the difference between territory rules with
*actual* (not virtual) playout and area rules with actual playout ends
up being identical. The only
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:37 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
Do you see any mechanical issues with these rules, or do they still seem
ad-hoc?
group is ill-defined. It can mean indivisibly connected stones or
loosely connected ones. In the false eye case, for example, there are
two indiviual groups
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 09:43 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
Many Faces of Go's Monte Carlo engine plays strongly using Japanese rules.
So what do you do in the playouts? Do you score with area or territory?
Does your program play optimally where different rules would result in
different winner?
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 10:41 +, Nick Wedd wrote:
Providers of Go servers claim that it would be pointless to try to
implement client-side time, as players would be able to cheat by hacking
their clients and fiddling with the clock. I don't doubt that they
would try to cheat, indeed I
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 10:16 -0800, Ian Osgood wrote:
Frankly, I'm baffled that nobody in the online Go world cares about
network lag. Timeseal has been a mature technology on the chess
servers for over a decade.
I logged into FICS today for nostalgia and one of the first thing I see
is
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 18:54 +, Nick Wedd wrote:
What sort of cheating does he complain about? Does he provide evidence
that it happens?
He couldn't flag his opponent when he ran out of time. Of course this
could just be lag, or maybe he killed his process when he was losing.
Once you
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 07:27:00AM -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
Consider the game when computer is black, with 7 stones against a very
strong human opponent.
Computer thinks every move is a winning move; it plays randomly; a
half-point win is as good as a 70-point win.
Didn't
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 09:57:45PM +0200, Ingo Althöfer wrote:
I forgot to make clear the following:
* I own some go programs, but only with commercial interfaces.
So I have to start each new test game by hand.
Why not just use one of the free and strong monte carlo programs that
work with
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
So the only difference in play is when losing, one has to keep trying
to lose as little as possible, resigning isn't an option. When ahead,
there's no reason to try to win big, unless the goal is to reach a
certain amount of
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:57:37PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the strategy should be to
push each game to the limit. Trying to win with a large margin is less
safe than with a small one, so it depends on the gambler's mindset.
That's why I said
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:19:45PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Sure. But different gamblers have different break-even limits, i.e.
different mindsets. Some are cautious and prefer 80% for those 25
points; some are reckless and would go for B even with 60%.
No professional gambler, if he
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:11:55AM +0100, Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
A professional gambler has a 2 step task.
1. Find a weaker player (aka fish)
[...]
So the whole idea of optimizing the score it totally besides the point.
I was using the professional gambler as a rational player in an
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 06:25:10PM -0500, compgo...@aol.com wrote:
It's the only pulication on Go that qualify as science.
I'd say it's more math than science. It's completely theory based and
has little if any practical applicaton.
There are plenty of quality, scientific papers that have
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:29:33PM +, Nick Wedd wrote:
Congratulations to Fuego, clear winner of yesterday's KGS bot
tournament!
My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/55/index.html,
probably with the usual errors. I hope you will report these to me so
that I can correct
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:30:56AM +0100, Jean-loup Gailly wrote:
It's exactly the same software. The only difference is that is
running on 23 cores. I am amazed at how well MCTS scales on 19x19.
It would be interesting to know how well Pachi scales on KGS against
ranked humans vs a
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:57:32PM +0100, Jean-loup Gailly wrote:
Yes it would be interesting but it's a bit difficult to run this
experiment.
The software and its parameters is constantly changing. We can't
create a new kgs bot for every new version or parameter change,
it
57 matches
Mail list logo
