On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:30 +0100, Lars Schäfers wrote:
By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;)
What formal and automatable Japanese ruleset are you proposing? A
computer implementation would also lend credibility.
-Jeff
By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;)
Lars
Hi Lars,
I don't want to get too philosophical here and start another rules
debate so I'll start by saying that I'm not that interested in rules as
such. It's way more interesting to me to focus on playing
Hello Jeff,
as far as I know there don't exist any formal and automatable japanese
ruleset.
I would propose the GnuGO scoring as a referee. Perhaps it's possible
to ask the two bots which stones they think are dead or in seki.
If they don't agree GnuGO will decide who had won. This would perhaps
Lars,
If I do anything to CGOS it would be handicap games. But I think your
suggestion is sensible for Japanese scoring.GnuGo won't score
perfectly every time, but I understand it is rarely incorrect.
Does anyone have statistics on how well GnuGo scores professional 19x19
games?
Akihiro has kindly agreed for us to film his talk and make it available. I
should be able to put it online somewhere - I will let you know when this is
done.
Best,
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adrian Petrescu
Sent: 05 November 2007 18:14
To: [EMAIL
Great work Dave! Look forward to seeing it.
-Josh
On 11/6/07, David Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Akihiro has kindly agreed for us to film his talk and make it available. I
should be able to put it online somewhere – I will let you know when this is
done.
Best,
David
From:
Don Dailey wrote:
Lars,
If I do anything to CGOS it would be handicap games. But I think your
suggestion is sensible for Japanese scoring.GnuGo won't score
perfectly every time, but I understand it is rarely incorrect.
Does anyone have statistics on how well GnuGo scores
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:55 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Yes, I agree with your points.Well behaved on CGOS means that your
bot will resign as soon as it knows it's losing.
I think when a bot should resign is a matter of personal preference. I
myself prefer to see games played out
On Nov 6, 2007 4:34 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Territory scoring doesn't make the game end any sooner, it just
penalizes you for not doing so.
Right. In close games, the decision to pass is non-trivial. If protecting
against an invasion causes a loss, then the invasion must be
Hi Jeff,
Yes, I agree with your points.Well behaved on CGOS means that your
bot will resign as soon as it knows it's losing.
But against humans it should technically be the same, but isn't.When
playing against humans a bot needs to be able to mark dead groups.
In my opinion time
Ok, this is my last post on this topic for a while, promise.
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 17:21 -0500, Jason House wrote:
I think having a way to generate a lot of games to test this style of
behavior is helpful. I really care little about the rules, except
that it provides a mechanism to encourage
Hi Jason,
A few comments.
Area scoring is what CGOS does, Territory scoring is Japanese.
Territory scoring doesn't make the game end any sooner, it just
penalizes you for not doing so.
I like the concept of not playing the game out to the bitter end but you
can't stop players from
the idea is: identify at least one stone from every unconditionally
living and every unconditionally dead group on the board, and
report them as dead or alive.
It can be done very fast, but the problem is that in a typical
endgame board under Japanese rules, the number of unconditionally
the idea is: identify at least one stone from every unconditionally
living and every unconditionally dead group on the board, and
report them as dead or alive.
It can be done very fast, but the problem is that in a typical
endgame board under Japanese rules, the number of unconditionally
Lars Schäfers wrote:
I would propose the GnuGO scoring as a referee. Perhaps it's possible
to ask the two bots which stones they think are dead or in seki.
If they don't agree GnuGO will decide who had won. This would perhaps
be an advantage for GnuGO playing on CGOS but show me a 9x9 game
At 05:22 PM 11/6/2007, Ray Tayek wrote:
At 03:50 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
... in a typical
endgame board under Japanese rules, the number of unconditionally
alive stones is zero.
maybe for pro games. for amatuer 1-kyu to 10-kyu games, i suspect that after
about 1/2 of the moves in the entire
At 05:22 PM 11/6/2007, Ray Tayek wrote:
At 03:50 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
... in a typical
endgame board under Japanese rules, the number of unconditionally
alive stones is zero.
maybe for pro games. for amatuer 1-kyu to 10-kyu games, i suspect that after
about 1/2 of the moves in the entire
Folks...
First, let me say how much pleasure my reading of this list has given
me. I love that folks are out there cranking on this problem. Truly,
it's one of the great problems.
I have a rather strange request. I am a statistical idiot, in both
senses of 'statistical'. After scrolling
Am I making *any* sense? If so, you may need some sort of psychiatric help,
or alternatively, you could do me the favor of explaining how to ask for what
I want or even how to actually get it. :)
Most computer applications use uniform randomness, but it sounds like
what you want is normally
It sounds like you're frustrated, so here's a few lines of C code
that'll do about what you describe. Note that the use of large values
for the standard deviation will make the code go very slow from
repetitive looping. The divide by 10 is to make it not be too slow with
a degree of randomness
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Mike Hill wrote:
int choose( int range, int degree-of-randomness)
Returns an integer in [0-range] distributed depending on the value of
degree-of-randomness. At degree-of-randomness 100, I want the distribution
to be uniform. At degree-of-randomness 0, I want the
At 07:03 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
...
Returns an integer in [0-range] distributed depending on the value
of degree-of-randomness. At degree-of-randomness 100, I want the
distribution to be uniform. At degree-of-randomness 0, I want the
distribution to be -- I don't even know what to call
22 matches
Mail list logo
