Le samedi 2 février 2008, terry mcintyre a écrit :
Apologies for not quoting Don Dailey's text on Borda voting --
yahoo is doing something truly awful with quoted text, for some reason.
It also break mail-thread, putting your post in uncorelated thread.
Maybe switch to another mail ? ;-)
Le samedi 2 février 2008, Christoph Birk a écrit :
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
1800 is gnugo, so this puts top programs near 1k (2d for extreme
mogo_18) this seems reasonable to me.
Are you confusing 19x19 and 9x9?
The ELO/KGS table is for 19x19, while mogo_18 plays 9x9.
Hi,
I would like to confirm your experiments: I have noticed already that
adding shapes of radius 4 improves prediction a lot, but does not
improve playing strength (from progressive widening).
Also, even worse than that, for a given set of features, the pattern
urgencies computed by MM
For whatever reason my email grep'ing skills haven't spawns answers to
a previously emailed question.
In chess we have xboard/winboard. What clients do you recommend for
linux for GTP playing?
-Josh
___
computer-go mailing list
In addition to my previous email is there a cli based app for doing
two way gtp based head on head competitions between two engines?
-Josh
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
David Doshay wrote:
I looked up borda voting on Wikipedia. I did not know this was called
Borda voting, and it might be called a zeroth-order version of what I
am thinking. Rather than just take rank order from each, I intended to
try to include other metrics, for example, some measure of
Joshua Shriver wrote:
In addition to my previous email is there a cli based app for doing
two way gtp based head on head competitions between two engines?
The GNU Go distribution provides multiple twogtp scripts in the
interface/gtp_examples directory. These are written in Perl, Python, and
I have been following the scaling study closely. Thanks for everyone for
gathering such interesting data and especially to Don and the people
donating computers.
I have 2 suggestions that could help increase the amount of information
gathered from all the CPU hours being used to play these
Hello.
Hi,
I would like to confirm your experiments: I have noticed already that
adding shapes of radius 4 improves prediction a lot, but does not
improve playing strength (from progressive widening).
I have not yet tuned progressive widening. This information is helpful for my
experiments
Joshua Shriver wrote:
For whatever reason my email grep'ing skills haven't spawns answers to
a previously emailed question.
In chess we have xboard/winboard. What clients do you recommend for
linux for GTP playing?
I recommend Quarry.
/Gunnar
___
i agree with everything except for the seeding. it takes very few games
(especially with the distribution you suggest) to get somewhat near the
right spot. with 500-ish games being played per player, the initial time
to get into the right place isn't unreasonable.
keep in mind that if you
Hi Chuck,
Thank you for your interesting suggestions.I have previously
considered a system where the distribution is based on how many
contestants. For instance if there are hundreds of players you would
want to generate best of 5 or 6 or more, but if there were only 3 or 4
you might want
Hi such question that do you typically traverse all child objects or is
there faster way to select explored node child object.
I have concluded that it is not at least easy as multiple nodes uct values
change each simulation so trying to keep biggest uct value in first in list
is maybe too
It's a shame a priority queue can't be used. But after each
simulation, all sibling change together.
- Don
Harri Salakoski wrote:
Hi such question that do you typically traverse all child objects or
is there faster way to select explored node child object.
I have concluded that it is not
Harri Salakoski wrote:
Hi such question that do you typically traverse all child objects or is
there faster way to select explored node child object.
I have concluded that it is not at least easy as multiple nodes uct
values change each simulation so trying to keep biggest uct value in
first
I'm not sure what to think about the following:
Leela 0.3.0 vs Leela 0.3.7, 455 game match
177 vs 278 = +78 ELO points for Leela 0.3.7
CGOS rating
Leela_0.3.0_1CPU 2335
Leela_0.3.7_2CPU 2333
Hmm..but also
Zen-0.9 2386
Zen-1.0 2385
or more:
Uct-200801122348
Uct-200801132334
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I'm not sure what to think about the following:
Leela 0.3.0 vs Leela 0.3.7, 455 game match
177 vs 278 = +78 ELO points for Leela 0.3.7
CGOS rating
Leela_0.3.0_1CPU 2335
Leela_0.3.7_2CPU 2333
Hmm..but also
Zen-0.9 2386
Zen-1.0 2385
I think it
17 matches
Mail list logo