[computer-go] Another person for the computer go gathering?

On behalf of Peter Christopher [EMAIL PROTECTED], I am forwarding this message. It looks like there's is another candidate for the meeting tomorrow. It may just be Peter and I there, but we'll see. My current plan for tomorrow is to try and make my way to the student union around 5. We'll s

Re: [computer-go] bitmap conjecture faulty--help?

1) If we're sorting bitmaps into categories (for deciding on the next move), the sorting will be most efficient when we can ask questions with probability of 1/2 of "true" or "false," as in playing a sort of "Twenty Questions." [ These bitmaps wouldn't be necessarily maps of stones on the boar

Re: [computer-go] U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros

- Original Message - From: "Tom Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "computer-go" Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros At 12:42 28/07/2007, you wrote: At 02:58 28/07/2007, Arend wrote: On 7/26/07, chrilly <

Re: [computer-go] OT U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros

On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 13:22 -0400, Chris Fant wrote: > It's perfectly fine to prefer a game of perfect information over a > game of imperfect information, but I don't think it's fair to say that > poker is a dilution of the concept of playing strength (neither do the > poker pros). Why isn't it?

Re: [computer-go] Abstract analysis of Monte Carlo playout

> So even though you the playout agent has only 50% probability of > playing correctly, the probability that after 2 plys the position is > still won is 75%! going toward a limit of 66.6% as the number of plies increases - This email was sent using AIS Web

Re: [computer-go] OT U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros

> I don't mean to say that poker is simple, but that a lot of strategy > involves rock-paper-scissors psychology, which dilutes the intellectual > idea of how "strong" a program (or person) is. It's interesting in it's > own way, but I prefer a game like Go, where the information is perfect > but

Re: [computer-go] U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros

(no limit hold 'em example) if "no. of hands" can be taken to be "# of distinct 2 card hands, mod suit isomorphism" for the first action, and "no. of hands" is taken to be "# of distinct 3 card hands given the first two cards" for the second action, etc., then it's easy to see that the vast bulk o

Re: [computer-go] U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros

Let's recalculate the game space size for poker. For a given hand there are N possible actions. For a given hand and a given action, there are m posssible bets. Then the game space size is N*M*(no. of hands). DL AOL now

Re: [computer-go] OT U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros

On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 13:01 +0100, Tom Cooper wrote: > Any variety of poker is sufficiently complicated that it is very difficult to > find an optimal mixed strategy, and therefore it is, as far as my > interest in it > is concerned, very different from Roshambo. I followed the link to Iocaine th

Re: [computer-go] U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros

At 12:42 28/07/2007, you wrote: At 02:58 28/07/2007, Arend wrote: On 7/26/07, chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is a remarkable result. I think poker is more difficult than Go and of course chess. I am as surprised by this statement as everyone else. Of cour

Re: [computer-go] U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros

I'm not familiar with the tournament poker. So I may be wrong. shouldn't the 'no.hands' in your formular be replaced with a single number that is the probability that oppenent's hand is better than me? If so,it factors out. The only scenarios left to be considered becomes (no. of my actions)^(

[computer-go] OT U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros

At 18:20 26/07/2007, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 18:14 +0200, chrilly wrote: > Chess/Go... can be played in an autistic way. There is no need for an > opponent model. Ah, an opponent model. Where's the poision? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes#qt0250635 Too much r

Re: [computer-go] U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros

At 02:58 28/07/2007, Arend wrote: On 7/26/07, chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is a remarkable result. I think poker is more difficult than Go and of course chess. I am as surprised by this statement as everyone else. Of course you have to develop some mixe

Re: [computer-go] Abstract analysis of Monte Carlo playout

Hi Erik, you are right about the parity effect. If you sample game length uniformly from {100,101} then the results are almost everywhere 50%, i.e. no information. With 95% correctly playing agent you get 50.27% correctness for the final result which could be significant enough to be detected

Re: [computer-go] Abstract analysis of Monte Carlo playout

Hi Antti, I had a quick look at your numbers. Maybe I misunderstood something, but at first glance there appears to be a parity effect (an even number of 100% blunder moves always get it right). How do the statistics look if the game length is odd? If it matters, maybe you should sample over a r

Re: [computer-go] Engine development for beginners

On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 18:03 -0700, Joshua Shriver wrote: > Are there any really simple engines out there that know just enough to > play a legal game of Go? Preferably C, Perl or Java? Have a look at GoGui and the included gtpdummy engine, which plays a random game. It's Java based. If you write

[computer-go] Abstract analysis of Monte Carlo playout

Hi, there was some time ago discussion about whether it pays off to improve the quality of an MC play-out agent or not, and how important it is to keep it "balanced", so I performed the following abstract experiment: Assume that we start from a position that is game-theoretic win for Black. I