2007/4/11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I watched MoGo playing with different rank of players. Usually 5d players
has no problem winning. Starting from 4d begin to lose games. However, part
of it is due to most players are not familar with 9x9 Go. Taking this into
consideration I place
Hello, a small set of a low dan datapoints:
I've been playing 9x9 go against MoGoBot on KGS as white
(with guest acount guest47) with komi 0,5. My result
sofar is 4 wins and 9 losses, which was a nice surprise
for me (as an European 3 dan), since I wasn't expecting
MoGoBot to be that strong.
On 4/11/07, Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/4/11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I watched MoGo playing with different rank of players. Usually 5d players
has no problem winning. Starting from 4d begin to lose games. However, part
of it is due to most players are not familar
Hello,
I'm curious to know, how many playouts (in Sensei's 100k
is mentioned for CGOS) MoGoBot plays, i.e., how serious
version is it?
This version plays on a intel core2 duo, and on a 10 minutes game, it makes
between 40 and 5 playouts per move (more at the beginning). The
current
This version plays on a intel core2 duo, and on a 10 minutes game, it
makes between 40 and 5 playouts per move (more at the
beginning).
snip
I hope I answer here your questions.
Sylvain
Thanks for the info, my desire of MoGoBot knowledge has been satisfied ;)
-Esa
Sounds good, but the xboard protocol is also very nice.
Though a UGI sounds like a good step.
-Josh
On 4/11/07, Chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am implementing currently for the Suzie-GUI GTP-2. I think this protocoll
has a number of shortcomings.
a) There is only a very strange way to
I am a big fan of UCI, and it would be great if we could use a similar
interface for go.
The only part I would probably not try to reproduce for go is the
pondering scheme. In chess assuming the opponent had moved the
predicted move was the most popular choice by far, so it was ok to
have it
From: Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:59:57 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] The dominance of search (Suzie v. GnuGo)
On KGS, 9x9, MoGo uses about 40s per move, and on 19x19 (when rated 4kyu)
used 15s per move.
It would be interesting to see how MoGo does
Thanks Sylvain.
Sylvain Gelly wrote:
The results are that in order to keep the same winning rate, you have to
increase the number of simulations by something a little larger than
linear
in the board area. From 9x9 to 13x13, you need something like 3 times
more
simulations for the same
Most people on DGS play many concurrent games, I'd recommend that MoGo
follow the same strategy.
Then you need multiple dedicated computers.
It is also possible to have shorter time controls.
DGS was brought up because of it's long time controls.
I also find this kind of information very interesting and useful. Now I have
a better feel for what kind of scaling is realistic to try for and how to
measure it.
Putting some recent data points together, it look like giving Mogo 2 orders
of magnitude more computer power would result in low dan
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:49 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
BTW. There is another stone in the way of 19x19 computer go.
Knowledge.
Humans play much stronger and do much stronger judgment than in 9x9.
I think you said this backwards from what you intended. Obviously,
humans are closer to
Are you sure the number of legal moves is proportional to the board area? It
seems going up much faster than that.
Daniel Liu
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:49 AM
Subject: [computer-go] Sylvain's results
What I
Sorry, you are right. I mixed up the legal moves and legalpositions.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Sylvain's results
Are you sure the number of legal moves is proportional to the
During last year i played a dozen of 9x9 games against a 1d (on a turn
based site) and won 50% (and I don't think it will improve much if I
played some more games). On 19x19 my winning percentage against the
same player during the same period was 95% over dozens of games. (all
even games with
Thank you Sylvain for conducting these experiments. We have had some very
enlightening results posted here recently in my opinion. I have to admit,
I'm surprised at how well the program seems to scale. Fortunately, I didn't
make a bet. :)
Taking for granted that these results indeed show what
As with anything, an efficient serial algorithm (alpha-beta, UCT, etc...)
becomes less efficient when made parallel. I think you can see some
significant improvement with parallel machines, but it may be that you'll
get diminishing returns.
I can think of two parallel approaches:
1. Instruct
No, humans are much weaker on 9x9 than on 19x19. I'm AGA 3 Dan, and I've
played thousands of 19x19 games, and hundreds of serious 19x19 tournament
games. I've studied thousands of 19x19 professional games, and have had
dozens of my 19x19 games analyzed by pros. I think before I tried playing
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:29 -0700, David Fotland wrote:
No, humans are much weaker on 9x9 than on 19x19.
David,
I saw this on Sensei's Library that indicates larger boards
are harder:
[ snip ]
In [ext]The Theory Practice of Go, Korschelt describes an
experimental 21x21 goban that
2007/4/12, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
9x9 is a good board size for computers. I'm not really sure if there
is anything special about 19x19 (why not 17x17 or 21x21?) perhaps
they thought 17x17 was too hard (if it's true that smaller boards
are harder for humans.)
To the question why not
I think I see our misunderstanding. I obviously dont think that smaller
boards are more challenging.
I do think that people are better players on larger boards. This is also
fairly obvious, even though 9x9 is a much simpler game. You can measure how
good someone is at any game by how much he
I agree with all David Fotland has been saying. I think every strong go
player would agree.
In fact, I think I am stronger than most European 4ds at 9x9, simply because
I realize it is a serious game, and I realize how early you have to start
reading out variations deep enough until you can
I cannot believe 9x9 is harder than 19x19 and
I don't care how strong the player is who says that - I don't
believe it.
- Don
I don't believe it either :) Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was making
a statement about how strong people are at a pair of games, not a statement
about which
23 matches
Mail list logo
