Now that the tournaments are over perhaps more of the top programs can join? I have two version of Many Faces (636, from last March, and 737, the latest, both on 4 cores).
Fuego is there twice, running on 56 cores and 4 cores. Pamogo, is it a version of mogo? Enos, a new very strong program. Does anyone know who it is? Valkyria is there. Zen and Aya and Suzie and Crazystone are missing. Regards, David From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of terry mcintyre Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Computer-go] cgos 19x19 gets interesting It looks like few of the top players are active at the moment; there's a copy of Zen, and the next strongest program playing a game is Fuego. About ten strong programs have not played for some while. Terry McIntyre <[email protected]> Unix/Linux Systems Administration Taking time to do it right saves having to do it twice. _____ From: David Fotland <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 12:18:53 PM Subject: Re: [Computer-go] cgos 19x19 gets interesting There was a study about 10 or 15 years ago that used the measured variance in score to extrapolate perfect play (with zero variance), and it got 4 stones better than the top pros. That's where this estimate comes from. David > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:computer-go- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jacques Basaldúa > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 9:09 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Computer-go] cgos 19x19 gets interesting > > >/ And that's the optimistic view: the usual wild guess is that the best > />/ pros are about four stones away from perfect play. > > Playing losing positions is tricky. The perfect move for w > minimax wise in handicap 4 is resign. So maybe accepting > that initially white loses by b_0 points and playing always > a move that keeps this minimax value expecting blacks > suboptimal choices to make b_i negative for some i is > probably not the best strategy. It is accepting: Ok i am > behind by (say) 45 points, lets build a solid 45 point loss. > > We can imagine how much a human pro can read from what > Catailin Taranu explains from his own games in his > eurogotv.com videos. Humans narrow the search very much > an may foresee say 20 moves. (Anyone reads 20 moves in a > ladder I mean 20 moves in a fight.) A perfect player could > read 300-400 ply full width. Obviously, it could also > compute what humans will not see or may see. Rather than > perfect play, an aggressive overhuman 300 ply deep full > board tesuji could probably include killing the 4 handicap > stones for free. If perfect play means overhuman tesuji I > guess 4 handicap stones is too few. > > Paradoxically, perfect evaluation can be a drawback > and minimax wise perfect play could be non-aggressive. > > Of course, we can bet as high as we want because we will > never know. > > Jacques. > > / > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
