Dear all,
When searching for start-of-the-art of Computer Go for my thesis, I discovered
a very interesting paper Combinatorics of Go by John Tromp and Gunnar
Farneback. I wonder if it is the same John Tromp that played with Many Faces.
If I understand correctly, they computed the State-space
Definitely the same John Tromp.
--Bob Solovay
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Aja ajahu...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
When searching for start-of-the-art of Computer Go for my thesis, I
discovered a very interesting paper Combinatorics of Go by John Tromp and
Gunnar Farneback. I wonder if
At 01:09 AM 1/1/2011, you wrote:
... If I understand correctly, they computed the
State-space complexity of 19x19 Go to be
2.08168199382· 10^170, which is really a big number.
3^(19*19)=1.740896506590319E172 is all
combinations of black, white and vacant
intersections on a 19 by 19 board.
And to add one more point:
He is also the same person that participated
in the design of the Tromp-Taylor rule set.
So, John is sort of an all-purpose man.
Ingo.
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 01:40:20 -0800
Von: Robert Solovay solo...@gmail.com
An: Aja
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:26:45 +0100
Von: Olivier Teytaud olivier.teyt...@lri.fr
...
Also, there are contributors to MCTS older than MCTS - Monte-Carlo people
(Cazenave, Bouzy...) and people using
tree exploration in planning (Péret Garcia is one of
Intriguing!
A position is obviously illegal if any point is occupied by a stone
surrounded by opposite-colour stones.
At the 4 corners, 25 out of 27 combinations will be legal. The proportion
(25/27)^4 will survive.
At the 68 edges, 79 out of 81: (79/81)^68 will survive.
At the 289 interior
On 01.01.2011 15:08, Álvaro Begué wrote:
If you don't trust John's numbers
It is not about trust but about taking time for understanding his proofs.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@dvandva.org
On 1 janv. 2011, at 15:13, Fuming Wang wrote:
Hi Remi,
Thanks for the reply. If I understand correctly, for outcomes of 0 or 1, the
formula would become something like the following, right?
variance = u - u^2 + 1/S
Best regards,
Fuming
Yes, it is correct. A random variable with
Hi Fuming,
Most of the current strong programs are using UCT combined with RAVE (a kind of
AMAF). The formula is like this (there are many variants),
C*RAVE+(1-C)*UCT
C is the weight of RAVE. As far as I know, there are at least two useful
formula to compute C:
1. The first formula was
It is really an interesting paper. I will try to understand its proof or
write a program to verify it.
Aja
- Original Message -
From: Ingo Althöfer 3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de
To: computer-go@dvandva.org
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Combinatorics of Go
Hi Alvaro,
I think you have perhaps misunderstood. As I read it, Arthur was
refering to his own analytic result (1.232) as being on the high side,
not John's result in the paper. Arthur is implicitly assuming that
John's number is correct (which I think we all are), and then
rationalising
Got it. Thx.
Fuming
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Go Fast fas...@gmail.com wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Rémi Coulom remi.cou...@free.fr
Date: Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 8:22 AM
Subject: [computer-go] Experiments with UCT
To: computer-go computer...@computer-go.org
I think you have perhaps misunderstood. As I read it, Arthur was refering to
his own analytic result (1.232) as being on the high side, not John's
result in the paper. Arthur is implicitly assuming that John's number is
correct (which I think we all are), and then rationalising what the
Happy New Year to all
Just a note: As a go historian, I interviewed John and summarized his
findings along with my other articles that have short interviews with
Olivier, Remi and Dave at www.usgo.org/bobhighlibrary.
Peter Shotwell
___
Computer-go
Now that I am back from London (the man/machine challenge, and
refereeing the London Open Go Tournament), I must urgently plan the
schedule of KGS bot tournaments for 2011.
It will be something like the 2010 schedule (see
http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/future.html ), but with four slow
I like this proposal. I hope you also continue the annual championship.
That should boost participation. These tournaments are a tremendous boon to
the computer go community, and I'm really happy you are continuing them.
I prefer the January tournament to be 19x19, because otherwise I have to
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org wrote:
In Computer Olympiad 2007, Steenvreter was gold medal on 9x9.
...
Obviously it was following MoGo's lead with UCT (the tournament was held in
June 2007, well after the remarkable success of MoGo). I don't mean to
Usually AMAF refers to an engine that does not build a tree.
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Aja ajahu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Erik,
Thanks a lot. The state-of-the-art part of Compuetr Go in my thesis will be
more accurate. Do you mean the whole MCTS scheme combined with UCB formula
proposed
David Fotland: 009501cba9f2$45e61f00$d1b25d...@com:
I like this proposal. I hope you also continue the annual championship.
That should boost participation. These tournaments are a tremendous boon to
the computer go community, and I'm really happy you are continuing them.
Same for me but I like
Hi petr,
We use the Silver formula:
rave_visits / (rave_visits + real_visits + rave_visits * real_visits *
3000)
The figure of 3000 is surprisingly resilient. Even with radically
different heuristics and playouts, it stays the empirical optimum.
Interesting. According to Sylvain's
20 matches
Mail list logo
