for small
boards(2-5) in different first moves available in net like to see that.
t. hArri
- Original Message -
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Solving Go
Ok, on 2x2 I
5x5 was solved with a massive brute force search approach. Memory was
used for large hash tables and endgames were scored early using Bensons
algorithm, otherwise it would not have been feasible from what I
understand.
Yes it was proof level paper, doing something lot less mathematically
Hi Harri,
I don't see a way to do anything larger than 5x5 as a table - and 5x5 is
pushing it. Even if we had an arbitrary amount of memory it would take
a vast amount of time to enumerate all the positions for anything larger
than 5x5.
But I am more optimistic about some kind of practical
Ok, on 2x2 I get a consistent result now that I implemented PSK. It
gives the same result with SSK too. It's a 1 point win for the first
player. I'm not sure this is in agreement with other peoples
findings. But it appears to be consistent.I can work my way
through the game and it
On 11/12/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, on 2x2 I get a consistent result now that I implemented PSK. It
gives the same result with SSK too. It's a 1 point win for the first
player. I'm not sure this is in agreement with other peoples
findings. But it appears to be
I am definitely interested in this.The approach that might be
interesting is a hybrid solver. I do not think the endgame database
approach is very useful beyond 4x4 or possibly 5x5.Even if it's
possible it's not particularly interesting except as an engineering feat.
5x5 was solved
Has anyone did this before or has anybody thoughts about this?
I have done that for 4*4 and 3*3, my code is not in shape that it could be used
5*5 but have high believes it is anyway possible used for 6*6 some day. But
this was discussed in this group earlier and nothing new has occurred since
You could go the route chess does with egtbs.
First permutate every possible board with both stones, and start
removing pieces one at a time.
I wrote a permutation tool, but even with 3 and 4 size board the end
data file was huge.
-Josh
On 11/7/07, Ben Lambrechts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've put a lot of thought into this. 5x5 is about the largest feasible
board size (currently) for creating an endgame database which is a
table of all possible positions with the resulting score.I don't
know if anyone has done this, but I know that this board size can be
solved with brute
Álvaro Begué wrote:
On 11/7/07, *Don Dailey* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
To go beyond 5x5, say 7x7 would require an endgame table with 3**49
entries or 239299329230617529590083 entries. This can be reduced by
about 8x if you remove
On 11/7/07, Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could go the route chess does with egtbs.
That won't work for go. First of all, chess and checkers are games where the
position on the board becomes simpler at the end of the game, so many games
will end up converging on positions for
I just ran my perm application for 4x4 and it's reporting
43,046,721 unique board states and took 2m6.980s. Will try for 5 and 6.
seems you're computing 3**(n*n)
3**16 = 43046721
3**25 = 847288609443
3**36 = 150094635296999121
don't you want to exclude illegal positions?
-john
I just ran my perm application for 4x4 and it's reporting
43,046,721 unique board states and took 2m6.980s. Will try for 5 and 6.
-Josh
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
13 matches
Mail list logo
