Christoph Birk wrote:
I don't think 2200 ELO on the 9x9 CGOS is equivalent
to 'high dan-level' play.
Neither do I. In fact the whole kyu/dan rating system applies
only to 19x19. 9x9 is not deep enough to have have so many ranks.
On a 9x9 board an average amateur beats a pro with handicap 3.
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
If someone has factual data[*] about 9 x 9 performance of
current bots I'll gladly revise the estimate on the webpage
on my own.
Mogo is around 2500 on CGOS:
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/MoGo_psg7.html
In Amsterdam, ajahuang (kgs 6d) played a few games
Mogo is around 2500 on CGOS:
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/MoGo_psg7.html
This implies you believe the ratings didn't shift over time.
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2007-October/011405.html
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/MoGo_monothreadC.html
Hi Gian-Carlo,
There is an interesting phenomenon going on when it comes to the
perception and advertisement of game playing strength.
One is that people take time to accept concepts they are used to
thinking differently about. I remember one human (chess) player who
was pretty weak for many
Don Dailey wrote:
Just a few years ago it was widely held that computers will not reach
Dan level in my lifetime even in 9x9 Go.When it happened in 9x9
go, it was not accepted - the day it happened passed us by and nobody
noticed it. It's probably still not common knowledge and it will
Robert Jasiek wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
Just a few years ago it was widely held that computers will not reach
Dan level in my lifetime even in 9x9 Go.When it happened in 9x9
go, it was not accepted - the day it happened passed us by and nobody
noticed it. It's probably still not
:54 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer
perspective.
Don Dailey wrote:
Just a few years ago it was widely held that computers will not reach
Dan level in my lifetime even in 9x9 Go.When it happened in 9x9
go, it was not accepted - the day
David Fotland wrote:
You can't add a fixed ELO offset per stone because games between stronger
players have much lower variance in score. A handicap stone is
approximately a score offset (about 7.5 points for the first handicap stone,
and about 15 points for each additional stone).
ELO
David Fotland wrote:
It's not clear if you are talking about professional Dan level or Amateur
Dan level.
I have meant the latter.
I've played the top 9x9 programs at 9x9, and so have several
other amateur Dan players, and I think we all agree that the top 9x9
programs have reached amateur
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, David Fotland wrote:
It's not clear if you are talking about professional Dan level or Amateur
Dan level. I've played the top 9x9 programs at 9x9, and so have several
other amateur Dan players, and I think we all agree that the top 9x9
programs have reached amateur Dan
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Russell Wallace wrote:
I haven't seen Leela before, but the claim of high dan-level
performance on 9x9 is certainly interesting.
I don't think 2200 ELO on the 9x9 CGOS is equivalent to 'high dan-level'
play.
Christoph
___
There was a thread on CCC (computer chess) about Go. An interesting post was
made that linked to Leela, a Go engine and GUI written by the author of Deep
Sjeng which is a moderate to high level chess engine.
http://www.sjeng.org/leela.html
Have any of you bought or tested the full version or
On Dec 2, 2007 2:02 PM, Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a thread on CCC (computer chess) about Go. An interesting post was
made that linked to Leela, a Go engine and GUI written by the author of Deep
Sjeng which is a moderate to high level chess engine.
2007/12/2, Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There was a thread on CCC (computer chess) about Go. An interesting post was
made that linked to Leela, a Go engine and GUI written by the author of Deep
Sjeng which is a moderate to high level chess engine.
http://www.sjeng.org/leela.html
Have
Sure, it's a long URL though.
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17341postdays=0postorder=asctopic_view=start=30
-Josh
On Dec 2, 2007 10:42 AM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 2:02 PM, Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a thread on CCC (computer
15 matches
Mail list logo
