I can change it to 20 minutes, but let's take an informal poll first, I would like to know that most people agree to this.
Any comments? Don On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:27 PM, David Fotland <[email protected]>wrote: > I didn’t notice the time limit was 30 minutes per side. The web page > still says 20 minutes. I’d also prefer 20 minutes per side, to get a few > more games in. > > > > David > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Don Dailey > *Sent:* Saturday, October 16, 2010 6:06 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Computer-go] cgos 19x19 gets interesting > > > > For 19x19 CGOS is set to 1800 seconds which is 30 minutes. > > > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Hiroshi Yamashita <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Zen and Aya and Suzie and Crazystone are missing. > > > > Aya runs on now. > > I have a question. > Is current CGOS 19x19 30 minutes per side? not 20 minutes? > I like short time setting. > > Hiroshi Yamashita > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Fotland" < > [email protected]> > > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 2:20 PM > > > Subject: Re: [Computer-go] cgos 19x19 gets interesting > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
