Thanks, Peter! I have a question or two regarding the opening book, based on a
collection of 3000 9x9 games provided by Nici Schraudolph. Who played the games
in this collecton - pros, strong amateurs, or go programs?
Second, were any statistics on the number of game moves "in book" versus
"out of book" collected?
Lastly, it was assumed that the book moves were winning moves; was this
hypothesis ever tested on a move-by-move basis, whether against GnuGo or itself?
Many thanks for an informative paper!
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By the way, the paper was rejected on first submission, largely
because we were just testing Orego against itself. We're now testing
Orego against GNU Go and have a revised version:
https://webdisk.lclark.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-2352013_1-t_Gct7yJ5s%22
(Markus, could you change the link and title? This was DPSV07.)
Peter Drake
Assistant Professor of Computer Science
Lewis & Clark College
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Feb 7, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Chris Fant wrote:
> In this paper, you say that you limit the number of moves to
> BoardArea*2 during the playouts. For me, this barely increases the
> playout rate and slightly reduces the strength (perhaps not
> statistically significant).
>
> Your paper does not mention suicide. Prohibiting single-stone suicide
> during playout gave me a nice increase in playout rate and strength.
>
>
> On 11/28/06, Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here it is:
>>
>> https://webdisk.lclark.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-2115826_1-t_OX34gnaB
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
