On 29/10/2007, Ian Preston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day guys,
I'm involved in the development of a very powerful and flexible grid
software, which we plan to release in January. It is all java based.
http://www-nereus.physics.ox.ac.uk/ (bear in mind you can't download
it yet and the website
Christoph Birk wrote:
It appears as if both CGOS servers crashed ...
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
cgos.lri.fr is still working, but the web page is not updated
milestone 1: All network-nodes compute pure Monte-Carlo (no search
tree) scores for the possible moves, the scores are combined centrally
to pick the move. It's easy, it will wring out the system, and the
bandwidth is low. The playing performance will always be poor because
this algorithm
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
On 29/10/2007, Ian Preston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day guys,
I'm involved in the development of a very powerful and flexible grid
software, which we plan to release in January. It is all java based.
http://www-nereus.physics.ox.ac.uk/ (bear
Le lundi 29 octobre 2007, Don Dailey a écrit :
I don't see Mogo on the server?Where is Mogo?
However CrazyStone is there to represent the Monte Carlo programs and
seems to be doing a very good job indeed!
CS-8-26-2CPU http://www.lri.fr/%7Eteytaud/cross/CS-8-26-2CPU.html is
doing
Le lundi 29 octobre 2007, Don Dailey a écrit :
I don't see Mogo on the server?Where is Mogo?
However CrazyStone is there to represent the Monte Carlo programs and
seems to be doing a very good job indeed!
CS-8-26-2CPU http://www.lri.fr/%7Eteytaud/cross/CS-8-26-2CPU.html is
doing
There has been a lot of talk about monte carlo and while I have the
jist not sure exactly what it is? Would someone explain it?
What I've read online is just to play a bunch of random games and pick
the best one. Is there now real evaluation between the games or sorted
method for generating
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:43:35PM -0400, Joshua Shriver wrote:
There has been a lot of talk about monte carlo and while I have the
jist not sure exactly what it is? Would someone explain it?
Here is my (amateurish) understanding:
Evaluation of a go position is very difficult. Monte Carlo (MC)
On 10/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] BOINC
On 10/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would be very difficult to put 1000 computers to work on a big
network to produce a single instance of a strong player. There are way
too many interactions - it's difficult to split the work up in a
reasonable fashion.
It's probably possible, but would require a lot of study. There are
Heikki's answer is close. I would think it important to add that MC is a
statistical sampling algorithm, so the attempt is to simplify the
difficult
job of evaluating a board state by sampling a large number of random
continuations, with the assumption that if enough samples are checked,
you
When an MC bot is ahead, it'll play safe moves that help guarantee a
coast to victory (many times by 1/2 point).
I am surprised by how often an MC bot wins by exactly 0.5 point.It's
almost as if it is converging to a 0.5 victory. One way to look at
this is that an MC program is all about
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:33:07PM -0400, Jason House wrote:
I don't think MC evaluation favors stable groups.
I guess I didn't really say what I meant here. MC evaluation sees weaknesses
in groups that can be killed by random play, even if they are safe enough in
the eyes of human players. For
On 10/30/07, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's really a function of the perceived chances of winning. When
behind,
it'll play bold moves since it's the only real way to win. An MC bot
that
is behind in endgame (even if by 1/2 point) plays so wildly, it
frequently
loses all
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Jason House wrote:
I think we're in agreement. I didn't know about the 5k limit, but that's
essentially what I was thinking.
The 5k limit is only true for heavy playouts (Don wrote that for
'Anchorman'). light playout don't plateau that early but are
intrinsically weaker,
If you're ahead and go for a bigger win, generally you're
just risking more to gain more when you don't need more.
there is *absolutely* no advantage from a game-theoretical
point of view to try to win by more than 0.5 points. and in
practice, it's generally not a great idea to try to win by any
Hi Steve,
steve uurtamo wrote:
If you're ahead and go for a bigger win, generally you're
just risking more to gain more when you don't need more.
there is *absolutely* no advantage from a game-theoretical
point of view to try to win by more than 0.5 points. and in
practice, it's generally
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:55:21PM -0700, steve uurtamo wrote:
If you're ahead and go for a bigger win, generally you're
just risking more to gain more when you don't need more.
there is *absolutely* no advantage from a game-theoretical
point of view to try to win
18 matches
Mail list logo
