Don,
Interesting thoughts and links. I read through them all. :)
Some points: I wasn't expressing an opinion as to the degree of
difference between God's komi and Man's komi. 2.5 seems perfectly
reasonable (at least with current levels of skill).
As far as it being widely believed that
Le lundi 18 février 2008, Michael Williams a écrit :
But as was pointed out before, these high levels of MoGo are probably still
not pro level, right?
On 9x9 Big_slow_Mogo is near pro level, maybe more.
6 monthes ago or so it was able to regurlarly beat pro without komi on 9x9.
Alain
? -Original Message-
? From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
? To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
? Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 1:45 pm
? Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: computer-go Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8
...I have seen widely held beliefs be proven wrong before
(the earth is
The next plan is to move to 13x13 with Mogo. We have failed to find a
worthy second program so we will start with only mogo playing.Here
is what we could use:
1. A strong scalable program.
2. Ability to adjust level in terms of number of play-outs.
3. binaries that work on 32 or 64
Michael Williams wrote:
But as was pointed out before, these high levels of MoGo are probably
still not pro level, right?
I don't know how strong Mogo is in the grand scheme of things - but the
experiments with komi indicate that 7.0 is too low and that 8.0 is a
lower bound on what komi should
On Feb 15, 2008, at 3:29 AM, Tim Foden wrote:
In your pure MC program, do you use UCB1 to choose the next move
to search at the root? If not, what algorithm are you using? I'm
currently using UCB1 for my test in Fluke.
No, it uses a random move even at the root node.
myCtest does NOT
Maybe komi should be expressed in terms of percentage of the total number of
positions. The komi of 7.5 for 9x9 looks the same with a komi of 7.5 for 19x19.
But percentage wise, they are different.
For a 1X1 board, the komi is 100% and for an infinitely large board, the komi
is 0%.
DL
