Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 27, 2008, at 10:14 AM, "Álvaro Begué" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Jason House
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Jason House
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:40 PM, J
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Jason House
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Therefore, the variance of the normal
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
ote:
Therefore, the variance of the normal that best approximates the
distribution of both RAVE and
wins/(wins + losses) is th
Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason House
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:34 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MoGo v.s. Kim rematch
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 18:08 -0300, Douglas Drumond wrote:
Attached is a quick writ
y, September 24, 2008 4:34 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] MoGo v.s. Kim rematch
>
> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 18:08 -0300, Douglas Drumond wrote:
> > > Attached is a quick write up of what I was talking about with some
> math.
> > >
> > > PS
On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "The approach of this paper is to treat all win rate estimations
as independent estimators with
additive white Gaussian noise. "
Have you tried if that works? (As Łukasz Lew wrote "experimental set
up would be usefu
> "The approach of this paper is to treat all win rate estimations as
independent estimators with
additive white Gaussian noise. "
Have you tried if that works? (As Łukasz Lew wrote "experimental setup
would be useful") I guess
there may be a flaw in your idea, but I am not a specialist. I will
Its exactly what I derived myself, so I understand it :)
But it might be difficult for causal reader.
My suggestions:
- you could add factor graph to ease thinking about it.
- [most important] describe what x, sigma_i, and u_i are
- [important] you could explicitly state bayes theorem to derive
po
It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded from
> ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have been a good
> improvement because he felt that communication overhead was significant.
>
Precisely, at the previous game, we had reduced the depth and frequency o
>>> It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded
>>> from ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have been a
>>> good improvement because he felt that communication overhead was
>>> significant.
I thought Olivier had previously said there was very little ove
> Attached is a quick write up of what I was talking about with some math.
>
> PS: Any tips on cleanup and making it a mini publication would be
> appreciated. I've never published a paper before. Would this be too small?
Better add an abstract, but what I missed most was bibliography.
[]'s
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 17:58, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Magnus Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > The results of the math are most easilly expressed in terms
David,
I've found a description that Infiniband was improved from 2 x 4X IB
(20 Gbps) to 8 x 8X IB (160 Gbps) on Jun 2008 at the bottom of 6th
page of a pdf about Huygens system:
https://www.os3.nl/_media/2007-2008/courses/inr/week7/sne_20080320_walter.pdf
I guess that is the "better hardware"
On 22, Sep 2008, at 10:50 PM, Hideki Kato wrote:
David Doshay: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded
from ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have
been a
good improvement because he felt that communication overhead was
s
David Doshay: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded
>from ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have been a
>good improvement because he felt that communication overhead was
>significant.
Really previous Huygens used Ethe
It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded
from ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have been a
good improvement because he felt that communication overhead was
significant.
Cheers,
David
On 22, Sep 2008, at 6:06 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
Con
On Sep 22, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Magnus Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In the case of the ladders the heavy playouts of Valkyria correctly
prunes playing out ladders for the loser. But sometimes in the
playouts the ladder is broken and after that there is a chance that
the stones escape a
ember correctly). A general solution is a little tricky.
David
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 6:23 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] MoGo v
I think AMAF is a feature not a bug. It's only a matter of how
judiciously it's applied.
Also, almost any evaluation feature in a game playing program is a bug -
meaning it is an imperfect approximation of what you really want.
Of course it could turn out that AMAF got them in trouble in t
Consider this as tentative, since I heard it about 3rd-hand, but I believe the
number of processors used to have been 3000.
Congratulations to the Mogo team; good luck improving your program to deal with
the ladder and life-and-death issues.
Looking forward to further information!
I have alw
I'm curious about a couple of things in particular. Is this a bug and
how much time would be required for Mogo to have played the correct move
if it wasn't.
Of course I'm also interested in ways to solve this with less deep
searches or better play-outs.
- Don
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:59 +02
Quoting Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Playing out that fake ladder in the first game meant an instant loss.
Surprising. And embarassing. Any information on the number of
processors used?
The interesting question is if there is a silly bug or something more
sophisticated.
I have struggled
ns.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7154
> The sgf's for the two games played are on page 2
>
> Dave Hillis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mingwu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; computer-go
> Sent: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 9:22 pm
> Subject: Re: [compu
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MoGo v.s. Kim rematch
Anyone knows the result, or better the game sgf?
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Great news! ? Look forward to seeing it happen. ?I hope Mogo has some
great hardware.
- Don
On Fri, 2008-09-
Anyone knows the result, or better the game sgf?
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great news! Look forward to seeing it happen. I hope Mogo has some
> great hardware.
>
> - Don
>
>
> On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 15:54 -0700, David Doshay wrote:
> > MoGo and Myu
Great news! Look forward to seeing it happen. I hope Mogo has some
great hardware.
- Don
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 15:54 -0700, David Doshay wrote:
> MoGo and Myungwan Kim will hold an exhibition rematch at the Cotsen
> Open on Saturday September 20. The exhibition will start at about 5pm
> P
MoGo and Myungwan Kim will hold an exhibition rematch at the Cotsen
Open on Saturday September 20. The exhibition will start at about 5pm
Pacific Daylight time.
As probably known by all on this list, MoGo won the last game, held at
the US Go Congress in Portland Oregon, when it was given a
27 matches
Mail list logo
