Yes. Extra time goes to positions where the top move is not getting most of
the playouts.
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org
[mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of terry mcintyre
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:57 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go]
Do you have any indication, which can be derived from the playouts,
that a position might deserve an extra allotment of thinking time?
I've a half-finished article, called Consistent PV Enchancement. This
was inspired by looking at the prime variation information that Many
Faces gives out
The last moves in the PV are usually quite weak. They don’t get a lot of
playouts.
-Original Message-
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go-
boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Darren Cook
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:39 PM
To: computer-go
Subject:
David Fotland wrote:
The last moves in the PV are usually quite weak.
They don’t get a lot of playouts.
In principle I like long PVs, therefore (and of course because
of its playing strength) Many Faces is my favorite Go program.
Several of you may laugh at me/it, but with some training a
Hi, as usual Valkyria seems to handle this position well at the price
of being a super slow program in general.
This is just one example of how it reacts.
After 100 simulations it treats F1 as the best almost always, having
searched 30 to 100 times. Perahps 50-70 times is the most common
Cool idea.
Magnus Persson wrote:
Valkyria computes AMAF win rates for all moves including those that are
pruned or illegal in the position. What I noticed is that in cases of
critical semeais the AMAF values of moves that are for example illegal
can get very high since they only get legal
Brian Sheppard wrote:
The simplest problems give me new appreciation for the difficulties we
face in programming this
maddening game. Here is an example, with X to play:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A - X - - - - X - -
B - - - - X X - X X
C X - - - X - X O O
D X X X O X X O O O
E O O O X X
Human players use reading (yomi) and feeling (kankaku) to play Go.
In MC programs, I think the reading is equivalent to UCT, and the
feeling
is equivalent to playouts. The reading is scalable, the feeling is
not.
If 2 programs have the playout algorithms of same level, The one which
used
Martin Mueller wrote:
In my view, Zen and CrazyStone are clearly the strongest
19x19 programs on equal PC-type hardware. This is what we
saw on CGOS a few months ago. I also expected MoGo to still
be a few hundred Elo ahead of Fuego on 19x19, but this is
not how the two games in Pamplona
I would like to see that too. Let me know when it happens, and I will be
sure to keep a close eye on CGOS to make sure it stays up and running.
- Don
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Ingo Althöfer 3-hirn-ver...@gmx.dewrote:
Martin Mueller wrote:
In my view, Zen and CrazyStone are clearly
What was the consensus on 7x7 komi? It was discussed back during Don's
scalability study, but I couldn't find the number itself. Was it 9.0?
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
I believe with CGOS rules, it is believed to be 9.0
I don't know if there is a proof of that, but I don't think there is any
dispute.
- Don
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Michael Williams
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com wrote:
What was the consensus on 7x7 komi? It was discussed back during
Don Dailey wrote:
7x7 isn't solved by computer, but the best ones play it extrememly
well. Does anyone have any information on how well they play it?
My guess is that with 9.5 komi, a strong computer playing white won't
lose much to anyone (as it's starting from a dead won position.)
13 matches
Mail list logo
