[computer-go] 2007 Cotsen Open wants your program to enter
David thanks for the report. Mark On Thu Sep 20 14:06:53 PDT 2007 David Doshay wrote: SlugGo entered the first year as a 9 kyu and won 1 game. One other game was clearly won on the board (more than 100 points) but the opponent was clever enough to start playing very complicated moves that I could see were not going to work, but took SlugGo a long time to reply to, and SlugGo lost on time. After that we put in time management code. The second year I made a silly mistake, and the graphical front end (GoBan) was mistakenly set to announce atari. The announcement was something that the multi-processor message passing code did not understand, so SlugGo lost all games by crashing in response to the first atari of the game. I figured this out minutes after the last game. SlugGo had been entered as a 10 kyu the second year. I felt horrible accepting the cash prize for best program, but it did help offset the $1250 cost of a handicap van that I had to rent to transport the cluster to Los Angeles. The Cotsen open is 5 games. I think the bracket ran from 8 to 12 kyu. I did not do anything to narrow my guess of the rating. I will look for the games. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Random move selection (was) Crazystone patterns
Good information. Thanks. - Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 7:44 am Subject: [computer-go] Random move selection (was) Crazystone patterns Dave Hillis, wrote: Suppose I can generate scores for all of the moves quickly enough. I still face the problem of quickly choosing a move biased by the scores. Tournament selection is fast, but that is a function of relative ranking of the scores, not the values of the scores. Roulette wheel selection gives me an answer, but it is slow slow slow, the way I implement it anyway. Can anybody describe a good way to do this? We posted about that before this summer when I was implementing it. I proposed a ticket based lottery, but that, of course, restricts the difference to small values. It can be implemented using a linked list so that each extra ticket allocation cost few clock cycles (I don't remember exactly how many, but less than 10 asm instruction for sure). My final version uses 2 values for the tickets HI and LO where 1 HI = 32 LO The default (when the pattern is not in the database) is 1 HI. The score goes from 1 (= 1 LO) to 1024 (= 32 HI). If you round the scores it the database to avoid such values as 927 (= 28 HI, 31 LO) and round it as 928 (= 29 HI) you can have a nice dynamic range from default/32 to default*32 having not too many tickets to allocate. Jacques. PD. Search the threads (about May-June 2007) because other good ideas were proposed. Binary trees, etc. ___ computer-go mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited 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: [Housebot-developers] [computer-go] ReadyFreddy on CGOS
I guess it really depends on what the point of the test is. I'm trying to understand the performance gap between my AMAF bot(s) and Don's AMAF bots. For comparison, here's the ratings and # of simulations: ELO 1434 - ControlBoy- 5000 simulations per move 1398 - SuperDog - 2000 simulations per move 1059 - ReadyFreddy - 256 simulations per move 763- Dodo - 64 simulations per move 600 - all my amaf- 5000-25000 simulations per move 300 - ego110_allfirst- ??? Looking at the cross table with ReadyFreddy, running (that's doing 5% of the work that my bots are), the results are 0/14, 0/20, 0/24, and 0/10. Even with the small samples, I'm quite certain that the performance of my bot is way worse than any of Don's. I'm not particularly concerned if alternate eye method #1 is marginally better than #2 (or vice versa). I'm reasonably confident that their performance is similar and that their performance is better than my original method. I'm content for now to find out the major causes of performance gaps and then revisit what is truly the best combo when I get around to doing quality coding of features instead of quick hacks for testing. Currently, both the random move selection strategy and the game scoring strategy have come under question. On 9/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm going to echo Cenny's comment. Small samples like this can be very misleading. For this kind of test, I usually give each algorithm 5000 playouts per move and let them play 1000 games on my computer. It takes about a day and a half. - Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: Cenny Wenner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 3:33 pm Subject: Re: [Housebot-developers] [computer-go] ReadyFreddy on CGOS By the data in your upper table, the results need to uphold their mean for 40 times as many trials before you even get a significant* difference between #1 and #2. Which are the two methods you used? On 9/18/07, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: original eye method = 407 ELO alt eye method #1 = 583 ELO alt eye method #2 = 518 ELO While both alternate methods are probably better than the original, I'm not convinced there's a significant difference between the two alternate methods. The cross-tables for both are fairly close and could be luck of the draw (and even which weak bots were on at the time). I put raw numbers below. Since I made one other change when doing the alt eye method, I should rerun the original with that other change as well (how I end random playouts and score them to allow for other eye definitions). While I think the alternate eye definitions helped, I don't think they accounted for more than 100-200 ELO vs ego110_allfirst orig= 33/46 = 71% #1 = 17/20 = 85% #2 = 16/18 = 89% vs gotraxx-1.4.2a orig=N/A #1 = 2/8 = 25% #2 = 3/19 = 16% On 9/17/07, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/17/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another way to test this, to see if this is your problem, is for ME to implement YOUR eye definition and see if/how much it hurts AnchorMan. I'm pretty much swamped with work today - but I may give this a try at some point. I'd be interested in seeing that. It looks like my first hack at an alternate eye implementation bought my AMAF version about 150 ELO (not tested with anything else). Of course, what I did isn't what others are using. I'll do another alteye version either today or tomorrow. It may be possible that some of my 150 was because I changed the lengths of the random playouts. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Cenny Wenner ___ computer-go mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- *Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail*http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aim/en-us/index.htm-- Unlimited 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/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [Housebot-developers] [computer-go] ReadyFreddy on CGOS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jason, I noticed from several emails that you are probably doing a lot of little things differently and assuming they make no difference. For instance you still haven't tried the same exact eye-rule we are using so you can't really say with complete confidence that there is no difference. If you really want to get to the bottom of this, you should not assume anything or make approximations that you believe shouldn't make much difference even if you are right in most cases. There could be one clearly wrong thing you are doing, or it could be many little things that all make it take a hit. I am curious myself what the difference is and I'm willing to help you figure it out but we have to minimize the ambiguity. I was going to suggest the random number generator next, but for these simple bots there doesn't seem to be a great deal of sensitivity to the quality of the random number generator if it's reasonable - at least for a few games. Ogo (which is almost the same as AnchorMan) has a poor quality RNG and if you play a few hundred games you will discover lot's of repeated results. With a good quality generator there have NEVER been repeated games that I have ever seen. So it could be a minor factor. One thing you mentioned earlier that bothers me is something about when you end the random simulations. AnchorMan has a limit, but it's very conservative - a game is rarely ended early and I would say 99.9% of them get played to the bitter end. Are you cheating here? I suggest you make the program as identical to mine as you can - within reason. If you are doing little things wrong they accumulate. I learned this from computer chess. Many improvements are worth 5-20 ELO and you can't even measure them without playing thousands of games - and yet if you put a few of them together it can put your program in another class. In my first marketable chess program I worked with my partner and I obsessed every day on little tiny speedups - most of them less than 5% speedups. We found 2 or 3 of these every day for weeks it seems. But we kept finding them and when we were finished with had a program about 300% faster than we started and it had a reputation at the time as being a really fast chess program. This works with strength improvements too. So you might have one big wrong thing, but you may have several little ones. So instead of continuing to explore eye rules and experiment, as much fun as it is in it's own right, it's not a productive way to find the performance problem. Start with the eye rule every program is using with great success and if you want to find something better LATER, more power to you. If you want my help, I will try to make a very generic version of AnchorMan that doesn't have any enhancements - just the clearly stated basics which I believe will probably play around 1300-1400 ELO. By the way, Anchorman on the new server seems to be weaker than on the old server - so that might explain some of the difference. - - Don Jason House wrote: I guess it really depends on what the point of the test is. I'm trying to understand the performance gap between my AMAF bot(s) and Don's AMAF bots. For comparison, here's the ratings and # of simulations: ELO 1434 - ControlBoy- 5000 simulations per move 1398 - SuperDog - 2000 simulations per move 1059 - ReadyFreddy - 256 simulations per move 763- Dodo - 64 simulations per move 600 - all my amaf- 5000-25000 simulations per move 300 - ego110_allfirst- ??? Looking at the cross table with ReadyFreddy, running (that's doing 5% of the work that my bots are), the results are 0/14, 0/20, 0/24, and 0/10. Even with the small samples, I'm quite certain that the performance of my bot is way worse than any of Don's. I'm not particularly concerned if alternate eye method #1 is marginally better than #2 (or vice versa). I'm reasonably confident that their performance is similar and that their performance is better than my original method. I'm content for now to find out the major causes of performance gaps and then revisit what is truly the best combo when I get around to doing quality coding of features instead of quick hacks for testing. Currently, both the random move selection strategy and the game scoring strategy have come under question. On 9/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm going to echo Cenny's comment. Small samples like this can be very misleading. For this kind of test, I usually give each algorithm 5000 playouts per move and let them play 1000 games on my computer. It takes about a day and a half. - Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: Cenny Wenner [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org
Re: [computer-go] Re: [Housebot-developers] ReadyFreddy on CGOS
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Jason House wrote: Christoph Birk wrote: On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Jason House wrote: My logic behind stopping at the first pass is that it's highly unlikely to form life in the void from captured stones. Since capturing the stones would increase the length of the game and isn't very likely to change the outcome of the game But how do you score game, if there are still stones to capture? Do you assume everything's alive? No. Stones in atari are considered dead. All stones in atari will be owned by the side that passed. It works for almost all cases, but I realize now there are some situations with ko that could be scored wrong... And your progamm WILL find these! Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [Housebot-developers] [computer-go] ReadyFreddy on CGOS
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Jason House wrote: I guess it really depends on what the point of the test is. I'm trying to understand the performance gap between my AMAF bot(s) and Don's AMAF bots. For comparison, here's the ratings and # of simulations: ELO 1434 - ControlBoy- 5000 simulations per move 1398 - SuperDog - 2000 simulations per move 1059 - ReadyFreddy - 256 simulations per move 763- Dodo - 64 simulations per move 600 - all my amaf- 5000-25000 simulations per move 300 - ego110_allfirst- ??? It might be hard to compare your AMAF-bots with Don's since he uses quite some tricks to improve their performance. I suggest you compare with some plain-vanilla program I keep for comparison on CGOS myCtest-10k (ELO ~1050) myCtest-50k (ELO ~1350) They do just 1 (5) pure random simulations. Your AMAF-bots should be at least that good if they have no significant bugs, correct? If you are interested I can run them 24/7 on CGOS (currently they only play once per week to keep them on the list). Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] problems w/ 19x19 cgos server
Two problems with the 19x19 server. 1) when I tried to click on a game for the 19x19 server, I got a 404 not found error. The same process works on the 9x9 links. Example of broken link from the Standings page: http://cgos.boardspace.net/19x19/SGF/2007/09/16/26970.sgf 2) my copy of GnuGo cannot connect to the 19x19 server. This happens periodically. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [Housebot-developers] [computer-go] ReadyFreddy on CGOS
On 9/21/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jason, I noticed from several emails that you are probably doing a lot of little things differently and assuming they make no difference. This thread has certainly helped highlight them. I now have a list of things and a crude ordering of what may be affecting the quality of the simulations and the results. I plan to experiment with changes to the various things... but don't seem to get more than 20 minutes at a time to dedicate to the experimentation. For instance you still haven't tried the same exact eye-rule we are using so you can't really say with complete confidence that there is no difference. Huh? I thought my eye alternative #2 was the exact eye rule. A center point is considered an eye if all 4 neighbors are friendly stones and no more than one diagonal is an enemy stone. An edge (corner) are eyes if all three (both) neighbors are friendly stones and none of the diagonals are enemy stones. I realize that alternative #1 wasn't correct, but I thought #2 was. Please let me know if that's an incorrect assumption. If you really want to get to the bottom of this, you should not assume anything or make approximations that you believe shouldn't make much difference even if you are right in most cases. There could be one clearly wrong thing you are doing, or it could be many little things that all make it take a hit. I'm systematically experimenting with these things. So far, this has been the eyes and playing a random game until one or two passes (in a row). housebot-xxx-amaf - original eye, one pass to end game hb-amaf-alteye - alternate eye rule #1, two passes to end game hb-amaf-alteye2 - alternate eye rule #2, two passes to end game hb-amaf-alt - original eye, two passes to end game I still have yet to experiment with random move generation. I'm 100% confident that this is what effective go library does, but I don't consider that evidence that it's the most correct method (only the fastest). I am curious myself what the difference is and I'm willing to help you figure it out but we have to minimize the ambiguity. I appreciate the help. When we're all done, I'll take a crack at writing a few pages describing the experiments and the outcomes. I was going to suggest the random number generator next, but for these simple bots there doesn't seem to be a great deal of sensitivity to the quality of the random number generator if it's reasonable - at least for a few games. Out of all things, I would suspect my PRNG the least. It's an open source Mersenne Twister implementation (Copyright (C) 1997 - 2002, Makoto Matsumoto and Takuji Nishimura). My understanding is considered a really good random number generator. I'll likely try alternatives to how random moves are selected based on the random number generator. Ogo (which is almost the same as AnchorMan) has a poor quality RNG and if you play a few hundred games you will discover lot's of repeated results. With a good quality generator there have NEVER been repeated games that I have ever seen. So it could be a minor factor. One thing you mentioned earlier that bothers me is something about when you end the random simulations. AnchorMan has a limit, but it's very conservative - a game is rarely ended early and I would say 99.9% of them get played to the bitter end. I don't use a mercy rule, and have tried out playing games to the bitter end (neither side has a legal non-eye-filling move). I assume this would resolve your concerns. Are you cheating here? I suggest you make the program as identical to mine as you can - within reason. I agree and I'm slowly trying to do that. If you are doing little things wrong they accumulate. I learned this from computer chess. Many improvements are worth 5-20 ELO and you can't even measure them without playing thousands of games - and yet if you put a few of them together it can put your program in another class. I don't disagree with what you're saying. At 20 ELO per fix, 800 ELO is tough to overcome. I'd hope I can't have that many things wrong with a relatively pure monte carlo program ;) I'm hoping to find at least one really big flaw... something that'd put it close to ReadyFreddy. I want to try a breadth of changes to see if I can something akin to a magic bullet. As I go forward, I will also try various combos of the implemented hacks and see how they do. It's easier to put up a new combo and see how it does. One small problem I have is that I can only run two versions reliably and rankings at my bots' current level seem to fluctuate a lot by which bots are currently running. In my first marketable chess program I worked with my partner and I obsessed every day on little tiny speedups - most of them less than 5% speedups. We found 2 or 3 of these every day for weeks it seems. But we kept finding them and when
Re: [Housebot-developers] [computer-go] ReadyFreddy on CGOS
On 9/21/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It might be hard to compare your AMAF-bots with Don's since he uses quite some tricks to improve their performance. I suggest you compare with some plain-vanilla program I keep for comparison on CGOS myCtest-10k (ELO ~1050) myCtest-50k (ELO ~1350) They do just 1 (5) pure random simulations. Your AMAF-bots should be at least that good if they have no significant bugs, correct? If you are interested I can run them 24/7 on CGOS (currently they only play once per week to keep them on the list). Are you using AMAF, UCT, or something else? If it's no trouble to you, it would be nice to see them running online while all of this AMAF stuff is going on. I find it interesting that your 10k and 50k bots have wildly different performance given what Don has indicated. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [Housebot-developers] [computer-go] ReadyFreddy on CGOS
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Jason House wrote: Are you using AMAF, UCT, or something else? Nothing at all. Really pure random playouts. I am working on an AMAF version for comparison ... If it's no trouble to you, it would be nice to see them running online while all of this AMAF stuff is going on. ok. I'll run them continously. I find it interesting that your 10k and 50k bots have wildly different performance given what Don has indicated. I think he was referring to his Achorman. The heavier the playout the smaller the improvement with more playouts, I guess. I tried a 250k version, but that only in creased the rating by about 100 ELO. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] problems w/ 19x19 cgos server
If the 19x19 CGOS is going to be retired due to lack of interest, I wonder if there would be interest in trying out an ultra-blitz version for a while: games as fast as the com. links would permit.?(Game storage would be an issue. Maybe they just wouldn't get stored.) It could be a limited time trial. It might push the front runners out of their comfort zones and tempt some of those on the sidelines to join in. What do people think? - Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 1:25 pm Subject: Re: [computer-go] problems w/ 19x19 cgos server -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I had to take the 19x19 server down due to disk space limits on the boardspace server. Almost nobody has been using it anyway. I will also be archiving the 9x9 games on another site soon. If someone wants to host it on a unix machine that is visible I would consider relocating the server if there is enough interest. I'm wondering if a 13x13 server would be more popular. David Doshay is going to host a site to archive games and I will put all the 19x19 games that have been played on the 19x19 server there for future reference. - - Don terry mcintyre wrote: Two problems with the 19x19 server. 1) when I tried to click on a game for the 19x19 server, I got a 404 not found error. The same process works on the 9x9 links. Example of broken link from the Standings page: http://cgos.boardspace.net/19x19/SGF/2007/09/16/26970.sgf 2) my copy of GnuGo cannot connect to the 19x19 server. This happens periodically. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48253/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC mail, news, photos more. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG8/6SDsOllbwnSikRApxaAJ9PJ3v8WSe9ZPcAT0LSZnEpycXRyQCfS6Aj 1OwLvslMleTUOPG9JyMd/jU= =23nc -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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 -- Unlimited 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] problems w/ 19x19 cgos server
I'd only be interested in 19x19 games with enough time for reasonable games. I'm ok with slow games. My biggest problem is that my bots are simply too immature for 19x19. On 9/21/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the 19x19 CGOS is going to be retired due to lack of interest, I wonder if there would be interest in trying out an ultra-blitz version for a while: games as fast as the com. links would permit. (Game storage would be an issue. Maybe they just wouldn't get stored.) It could be a limited time trial. It might push the front runners out of their comfort zones and tempt some of those on the sidelines to join in. What do people think? - Dave Hillis ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] problems w/ 19x19 cgos server
Le vendredi 21 septembre 2007 21:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : If the 19x19 CGOS is going to be retired due to lack of interest, I wonder if there would be interest in trying out an ultra-blitz version for a while: games as fast as the com. links would permit.? (Game storage would be an issue. Maybe they just wouldn't get stored.) It could be a limited time trial. It might push the front runners out of their comfort zones and tempt some of those on the sidelines to join in. What do people think? - Dave Hillis With rather short time settings, gnugo can be the same strenght as mogo. I guess something like 10-15 min is correct on 19X19. Maybe a good idea is to find the time setting where these 2 bots have 50% win against each other. This would be of great interest for other programs. Else i bet gnugo will crush all programs in ultra blitz (at level 0 gnugo loses only 2 kyu on KGS compared to level 10) Alain. -Original Message- From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 1:25 pm Subject: Re: [computer-go] problems w/ 19x19 cgos server I had to take the 19x19 server down due to disk space limits on the boardspace server. Almost nobody has been using it anyway. I will also be archiving the 9x9 games on another site soon. If someone wants to host it on a unix machine that is visible I would consider relocating the server if there is enough interest. I'm wondering if a 13x13 server would be more popular. David Doshay is going to host a site to archive games and I will put all the 19x19 games that have been played on the 19x19 server there for future reference. - Don terry mcintyre wrote: Two problems with the 19x19 server. 1) when I tried to click on a game for the 19x19 server, I got a 404 not found error. The same process works on the 9x9 links. Example of broken link from the Standings page: http://cgos.boardspace.net/19x19/SGF/2007/09/16/26970.sgf 2) my copy of GnuGo cannot connect to the 19x19 server. This happens periodically. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48253/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC mail, news, photos more. ___ 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 -- Unlimited 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/
