Re: [computer-go] GTK client OSX and Windows
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 26, 2007, at 20:07 , Don Dailey wrote: Does anyone here have experience with the GTK user interface library for Windows or for OSX ? There's X11 for the Mac, so you can run Gtk applications on the Mac (the Gtk libraries have to be installed via Fink (http://fink.sf.net) or MacPorts (http://www.macports.org/)). But this means that it's not well integrated with the rest of the applications and of course they look differently. But it is possible to get it to work. Urban - -- http://bettong.net | Urban's Blog http://computer-go.bettong.net | Planet Computer-Go -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFuzJmggNuVCIrEyURAnJMAKCt3WYuAz0lcAz8TIH6ZteW36tvuACgqgW0 LlDHjrRkiut4lFZQ6iB2z9k= =B50R -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go and IQ training
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Olsson wrote: Can Go be used to increase a person's aptitude. Their aptitude for playing Go ? Certainly. Their aptitude for doing anything else - now that's a much more difficult question. And much more interesting. My suspicion would be that if you tested carefully in a population of novice players and then in the same people later, after they'd reached significant playing strength, then you'd find statistically significant changes in some cognitive abilities. What those changes are might well be a valid consideration for designing computer Go systems, making the discussion relevant here. I'm not a psychologist to give formal names to those cognitive abilities, but they'd involve the ability to carry and work with multiple simultaneous hypotheses, to maintain parallel streams of rather similar data (game sequences for evaluation) ... but in addition to such precision abilities are also broader creative or synthetic abilities, where a player can conceive of the general thrust of a solution (how do I invade that side?), but the details get worked out later as the situation clarifies. Certainly these aptitudes are of wider applicability than to games. But interviewers have known that for a long time, which is why they ask applicants to talk about their interests outside the job (or studentship) that they're applying for. -- Aidan Karley, Aberdeen, Scotland Written at Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:10 GMT, but posted later. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] early results
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 20:18 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I would highly recommend that you do your testing against a different Go engine. Self-play is a weak indicator. Cheers, David I agree that there is a pretty good amount of in-transitivity with self-play. However there is not a practical way to test with another program that I can see. You don't get reliable ELO ratings with programs significantly stronger or weaker. For instance if you play 1000 games, there is huge rating difference between beating an opponent once, or twice in these thousand games - and if that is your expectancy, you would have to play many hundreds of thousands of games to get a very precise measurement. Because UCT is a full tree search, I am not as concerned as I would be with SlugGo for instance, (although I agree it's still a problem) because Slugo uses gnugo directly to choose it's moves there is a highly incestuous relationship. - Don On 26, Jan 2007, at 5:39 PM, Don Dailey wrote: Here are some early results on the scalability study. Basically, level 2 beats level 1 83.6 percent of the time. level 4 beats level 2 90.0 percent of the time. Where a level is number of play-outs divided by 1024 Approximately 300 ELO between levels. I fixed level 1 to have an ELO of zero. Of course these numbers are still rough as there has only be a few games played between players so far. - Don gameswin% score Match Up -- -- - -- 55 16.4% 159.0 0001 0002 55 83.6% 202.0 0002 0001 30 10.0% 153.2 0002 0004 30 90.0% 207.8 0004 0002 Rating Win perc Tot Gms Ave Time Player --- --- -- 589.190.000 30 396.5 0004 269.157.647 85 225.3 0002 0.016.364 55 120.7 0001 Black wins: 37 43.5 % White wins: 48 56.5 % ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] early results
Le samedi 27 janvier 2007 14:07, Don Dailey a écrit : On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 20:18 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I would highly recommend that you do your testing against a different Go engine. Self-play is a weak indicator. Cheers, David I agree that there is a pretty good amount of in-transitivity with self-play. However there is not a practical way to test with another program that I can see. You don't get reliable ELO ratings with programs significantly stronger or weaker. You can use the furiously fast and weak following programs: gnugo-1.2 (604 ELO on cgos 9X9 , 22k on kgs) liberty 1.0 (986 ELO , 14k) gnugo-2.0 (1236 ELO, 10k) They work with GTP thanks to Aloril, and are GPL licensed. A beginner with 3 month of play is between 10-15k on kgs For stronger one, and still very fast, gnugo 3.6 at level 0 should do it. Regards. Alain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] early results
Le samedi 27 janvier 2007 14:58, alain Baeckeroot a écrit : Le samedi 27 janvier 2007 14:07, Don Dailey a écrit : I agree that there is a pretty good amount of in-transitivity with self-play. You can use the furiously fast and weak following programs: gnugo-1.2 (604 ELO on cgos 9X9 , 22k on kgs) liberty 1.0 (986 ELO , 14k) gnugo-2.0 (1236 ELO, 10k) Howerver, kgs says there is 4 stone difference between liberty-1.0 and gnugo-2.0 but Aloril tests show that in match, the difference is 14 stones (out of 1000 games) http://londerings.novalis.org/wlog/index.php?title=GNU_Go_games More fun test results at: http://londerings.novalis.org/wlog/index.php?title=Minor_items_2005 Diversity seems needed for calibration of rating. Regards. Alain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] early results
Handicap stones. - Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [computer-go] early results On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 20:18 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I would highly recommend that you do your testing against a different Go engine. Self-play is a weak indicator. Cheers, David I agree that there is a pretty good amount of in-transitivity with self-play. However there is not a practical way to test with another program that I can see. You don't get reliable ELO ratings with programs significantly stronger or weaker. For instance if you play 1000 games, there is huge rating difference between beating an opponent once, or twice in these thousand games - and if that is your expectancy, you would have to play many hundreds of thousands of games to get a very precise measurement. Because UCT is a full tree search, I am not as concerned as I would be with SlugGo for instance, (although I agree it's still a problem) because Slugo uses gnugo directly to choose it's moves there is a highly incestuous relationship. - Don On 26, Jan 2007, at 5:39 PM, Don Dailey wrote: Here are some early results on the scalability study. Basically, level 2 beats level 1 83.6 percent of the time. level 4 beats level 2 90.0 percent of the time. Where a level is number of play-outs divided by 1024 Approximately 300 ELO between levels. I fixed level 1 to have an ELO of zero. Of course these numbers are still rough as there has only be a few games played between players so far. - Don gameswin% score Match Up -- -- - -- 55 16.4% 159.0 0001 0002 55 83.6% 202.0 0002 0001 30 10.0% 153.2 0002 0004 30 90.0% 207.8 0004 0002 Rating Win perc Tot Gms Ave Time Player --- --- -- 589.190.000 30 396.5 0004 269.157.647 85 225.3 0002 0.016.364 55 120.7 0001 Black wins: 37 43.5 % White wins: 48 56.5 % ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] GTK client OSX and Windows
If you didn't start writing your client, and if you use C++, you might consider using wxwidgets. It uses GTK under X11, and native UI system under Mac or Windows. My understand is that there is a Mac port that doesn't need X11. I'm hoping to do a viewing client in GTK and I would just need someone to compile code I would write on these other platforms and perhaps help me understand what changes to make if it doesn't work 100 percent. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] GTK client OSX and Windows
On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 19:07 +0100, Antoine de Maricourt wrote: If you didn't start writing your client, and if you use C++, you might consider using wxwidgets. It uses GTK under X11, and native UI system under Mac or Windows. I'll check it out - I haven't started yet. - Don My understand is that there is a Mac port that doesn't need X11. I'm hoping to do a viewing client in GTK and I would just need someone to compile code I would write on these other platforms and perhaps help me understand what changes to make if it doesn't work 100 percent. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] scalability study
Below is the current results (in progress) of my UCT 19x19 GO scalability study. This is going to take a lot of time, but the results should be useful and I want to make them a matter of public record. Each person will interpret the data however he/she chooses. The data below contains the following levels: 0001 - 1024 play-outs 0002 - 2048 play-outs 0004 - 4096 play-outs 0008 - 8192 play-outs With help from other I will extend this as much as possible to much higher levels. Someone is helping me run games even now as I write this at higher levels - but the rate of play is quite slow, so it will be some time until we get significant results. Also please note this is not a round robin, only matches between neighbor levels will be played. 2 vs 1, 4 vs 2, 8 vs 4, 16 vs 8 etc. komi 7.5 200 games per match - 100 with each color - Don gameswin% Match -- -- - 24 95.8% 0008 0004 151 94.7% 0004 0002 152 90.1% 0002 0001 RatingTot GmsPlayer -------- 1045.3 240008 678.71750004 321.13030002 0.01520001 Black wins: 159 48.6 % White wins: 168 51.4 % ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
