Actually there might be. Wasn't one of Ralph Nader's Golden Fleece
awards given to the government funded Cray Blitz by Hanz Berliner? I
believe that there are many government agencies that are hessitant to
fund game research with taxpayer dollars.
In the late 1980s I tried to get some
Hideki Kato wrote:
Mark Boon: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Opposed to removing 9x9.
In favor of adding 13x13 wthout removing 9x9.
Me too. If, however, limited two 9x9 and 13x13 might be better now as
19x19 is not so utilized, IMHO. It's just early this year many
programs started being
David Fotland wrote:
I prefer keeping 9x9. We have 9x9 for quick testing of changes (because the
games are fast), and 19x19 for testing play on a full board. I don't think
13x13 adds anything. It's slower, so I would still use 9x9 for quick tests.
It's not a board size that anyone uses, so I
I am working on a plan to possibly be able to run 2 boardsizes on Dave
Dyers boardspace site. If this plan works out, obviously 9x9 is very
popular and we will keep it. The only questions is what should the
other board size be. It is starting to appear than 19x19 is the second
most popular
On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am working on a plan to possibly be able to run 2 boardsizes on Dave
Dyers boardspace site. If this plan works out, obviously 9x9 is
very
popular and we will keep it. The only questions is what should the
other board
We put up a 7x7 site a while back and I thought it would get heavy
traffic, but instead almost no interest.
- Don
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:39 -0400, Jason House wrote:
On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am working on a plan to possibly be able to run 2
On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We put up a 7x7 site a while back and I thought it would get heavy
traffic, but instead almost no interest.
I don't remember ever hearing about it. I'd use it for faster testing.
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:39 -0400, Jason
7x7 is actually not very interesting for computers. I did some tests
with Lazarus, which is far weaker than many of the better programs and
the games are one-sided, depending on the komi either white or black
wins every game.
If you made the komi 9.0 probably all the games would end in a draw.
I played on that temporary 7x7 server and I think the better programs
came close at being almost unbeatable on 7x7 white and 9.5 komi
especially if one uses the known opening library. So it might quickly
get boring for most better programs.
Although losses with white might reveal some
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Jason House
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think someone already has a website somewhere where they try to rank
bots based on KGS games.
I'm pretty sure the site stopped doing rankings when KGS
Jul 2008 2:46 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Jason House
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think someone already has a website somewhere where they try to rank
bots based
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 08:31 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
Mark Boon: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Opposed to removing 9x9.
In favor of adding 13x13 wthout removing 9x9.
Hideki Kato wrote:
Me too. If, however, limited two 9x9 and 13x13 might be better now as
19x19 is not so utilized, IMHO.
] On Behalf Of Ray Tayek
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 7:09 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
At 06:23 PM 7/27/2008, you wrote:
I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program that is
at least 3-dan by 2010.
we all do. but as the programs
2008/7/28 David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The traditional programs are around 10 kyu, but the new ones are 2 to 4 kyu,
at least on KGS. I've seen some handicap games against dan players that are
consistent with these ratings.
It wouldn't surprise me to see 1 dan from an MC program before
My question isn't about how strong programs are now, or what is the
definition of a dan, or what you think will happen in the future. The
question is: what do you need to give your current 19x19 program another
6-ish ranks in strength (or 6+N where N is the distance between your
program and the
I'm not the author of a strong program, but I'll throw another item into
the list: more incentive. For many, computer go competes for time with
many other hobbies and perhaps even a day job.
The big Ing prize brought many people into computer-go, all working in
parallel, competing, to make
Personally, I think the next big strength jump would come from combining
localized searches/sequences with the global search's MC playouts.
Curiously, my guess is the opposite: using UCT as the node evaluation in
a more traditional alpha-beta searcher. (It's been mentioned a few times
here but
Various branches of the US government (including NIST) have developed
a very successful approach to funding research. Set up a measurable
competition (such as we already have with CGOS) and then fund research
groups through a series of rounds, with the results of each funding
round being
For example, CrazyStone [1k]and MoGoBot1 [2k].
i found and played a few bots on kgs. can you tell me the name of yours and
some of the stronger ones?
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
At 12:43 AM 7/28/2008, you wrote:
2008/7/28 Ray Tayek mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 07:53 PM 7/27/2008, you wrote:
The traditional programs are around 10 kyu, but the new ones are 2
to 4 kyu,...
wow. that's impressive. can one buy these or just play the on kgs?
You can
You can download for free an old version of MoGo (which reached 2k on KGS
on a 4 CPU machine) at:
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/MoGo_Download.htmhttp://www.lri.fr/%7Egelly/MoGo_Download.htm
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/MoGo_Download.htmhttp://www.lri.fr/%7Egelly/MoGo_Download.htm
the exe just sits
Oops. Please ignore ...
AvK
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
the $500K/year to hire an expert team of programmers to incorporate
everyone's source code into an open-source framework is pretty
wasteful.
just let people dig through the code on their own. it'd be good enough,
and save $500K/year.
there's no real reason to give out the hardware, either,
On Jul 28, 2008, at 5:04 AM, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I think the next big strength jump would come from
combining
localized searches/sequences with the global search's MC playouts.
Curiously, my guess is the opposite: using UCT as the node
evaluation in
a more
Hi Mark,
I like your basic idea very much (minor details aside of course.) I
think 2 things have been largely responsible for the sudden increase in
the strength of computer go programs:
1. Nicks KGS tournaments.
2. CGOS
And your idea is an extension and improvement of these 2
Hi Don,
Yes, there would be as many different approaches as people.
I also agree that the KGS tournaments and CGOS have contributed a
lot. But don't underestimate the influence of idea-sharing. Both GNU-
Go and the many research papers about UCT/MC have contributed a lot,
both by
I'm not the author of a strong program, but I'll throw another item into the list: more incentive. For many, computer go competes for time with many other
hobbies and perhaps even a day job.
Darren Cook wrote:
I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program that is
at least
27 matches
Mail list logo
