Hi Sylvain,
>> Your code says that the value is backed up by sum and negation (line 26,
>> value := -value). But I don't see any negative values in your sample tree,
>> or values greater than one. How do you actually back up values to the
>> root?
>Sorry, it is value := 1-value. Thank you for po
On 2/21/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you looked for these images within that last 15 minutes, you would
not have found them. They are there now.
I started with 726x726 since that is a power of 3.
I meant 729x729
___
computer-go mail
If you looked for these images within that last 15 minutes, you would
not have found them. They are there now.
I started with 726x726 since that is a power of 3.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailma
But it was not what I was trying to ask for. The renormalization I was
suggesting would make each successive lattice smaller by a factor of
3 in each direction at each step.
http://fantius.com/0.bmp
http://fantius.com/1.bmp
http://fantius.com/2.bmp
http://fantius.com/3.bmp
http://fantius.com/4.b
That is correct. Down to "small" is enough.
But if done all the way to just one pixel it will show the winner.
Cheers,
David
On 20, Feb 2007, at 8:53 PM, Chris Fant wrote:
That is what I initially thought, but when I reread "renormalize it
repeatedly", I figured you must not mean that becau
That is what I initially thought, but when I reread "renormalize it
repeatedly", I figured you must not mean that because that would just
give you a single pixel after N iterations.
On 2/20/07, David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for doing this so quickly!
But it was not what I was
To attempt more clarity, each 3x3 block of pixels in the original
lattice
becomes just one pixel in the renormalized lattice.
this happens repeatedly.
Cheers,
David
On 20, Feb 2007, at 8:36 PM, David Doshay wrote:
Thanks for doing this so quickly!
But it was not what I was trying to ask
On 2/20/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any chance you would take the whole lattice and renormalize it
> repeatedly this way?
I have used a 5-block shape like a cross.
http://fantius.com/0.bmp (the initial image)
http://fantius.com/1.bmp
http://fantius.com/2.bmp
http://fa
Thanks for doing this so quickly!
But it was not what I was trying to ask for. The renormalization I was
suggesting would make each successive lattice smaller by a factor of
3 in each direction at each step.
Cheers,
David
On 20, Feb 2007, at 8:29 PM, Chris Fant wrote:
Is there any chance you
Is there any chance you would take the whole lattice and renormalize it
repeatedly this way?
I have used a 5-block shape like a cross.
http://fantius.com/0.bmp (the initial image)
http://fantius.com/1.bmp
http://fantius.com/2.bmp
http://fantius.com/3.bmp
http://fantius.com/4.bmp
http://fantiu
[resending; apologies if you get this twice.]
Hi,
This is my first post to the list, so I'll introduce myself: I'm a
software developer and just getting started with playing Go. I read
the article in the Economist and thought that the work on Monte-Carlo
based Go programs sounds promising. I
I'd be curious on the size of the captures during the game. Imagine
capturing a 1 stone dragon!
BoardSize, BoardArea, LargestCapture
100,1, 30
200,4, 47
300,9, 49
400, 16, 55
500, 25, 70
600, 36, 71
700,
The way we did this in the MC simulations of magnets was to
"renormalize"
the lattice using "block spins." A block spin is the net result of
adding up
all of the elements in (for instance) a 3x3 block. It works for this
lattice too,
just using B and W, and the result just being B or W. Just c
I'd be curious on the size of the captures during the game. Imagine
capturing a 1 stone dragon!
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Fant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "computer-go"
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Big board
this is very interestin
this is very interesting. Can you compute some properties, like the
distribution of cluster sizes, or diagrams for cluster size / boundary size
pairs? I don't know much about fractals, but does this picture have some
fractal properties, too?
Here's some numbers (on a torus board) :
BoardSize, B
No need for those difficulties, you can play along this board :
http://www.youdzone.com/go.html
On 2/21/07, Weston Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Somewhere online, I played a game on a torus, against someone's Java
applet that has this option. I seem to recall playing a normal game
at ei
> > Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
> > large board.
> > For ascetics, the eyes have been filled after both players passed.
> I think you mean "aesthetics". Ascetics are guys who torture themselves,
> and deny themselves pleasure, in a struggle to attain en
How would it look like without filling eyes?
(Something like goboard-kaya-wood-yellow...)
Without filling eyes, it looked a little speckled which gave it an
imprecise feel.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go
Somewhere online, I played a game on a torus, against someone's Java
applet that has this option. I seem to recall playing a normal game
at either 9x9 or 13x13, and then a game on the same-sized torus. I
recall the first game as being somewhat challenging to me, (a
beginner) and the second game
On 20, Feb 2007, at 2:27 PM, Chris Fant wrote:
Actually, I think what I did is equivalent to a torus. I just never
thought of it that way.
Yes, it is.
Your picture looks very much like the MC simulations of phase
transitions
in magnetic systems I did while in graduate school. Since that
here's my first guess at don's question about how this
would affect the game. my intuition is weak here, but
i'll take a stab at it just for fun.
no edges, no corners and no center mean that
you're effectively playing in the "middle" at all times.
this should mean that life would be harder to mak
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:21:08PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> CGOS uses simple rules, you MUST play out a game to the end, anything
> left on the board is considered ALIVE.
Fair enough. At least I don't have to worry about annoying other
p,layers by doing what already was the easiest thing for m
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 17:26 -0500, Chris Fant wrote:
> I like the idea of taking away the edges. In fact, the engine that
> generated this board are capable of doing that. But not as a torus.
> I simply wrap left-right and wrap up-down. This is cleaner, IMO. Go
> is so pure. I don't like the n
Actually, I think what I did is equivalent to a torus. I just never
thought of it that way.
On 2/20/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like the idea of taking away the edges. In fact, the engine that
generated this board are capable of doing that. But not as a torus.
I simply wrap l
I like the idea of taking away the edges. In fact, the engine that
generated this board are capable of doing that. But not as a torus.
I simply wrap left-right and wrap up-down. This is cleaner, IMO. Go
is so pure. I don't like the non-pureness of the edges.
On 2/20/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL P
But is it still a good game? I wasn't asking if it's different, that
is obviously true.
I can imagine it would be a more difficult game - no safety
in corners, no base to build from.But does this make the
game more trivial, simple or ruin it in some way?
- Don
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 10:0
Not only shiko, but many joseki depend on properties of the edges and corners.
On a torus, there are no edges or corners.
Terry McIntyre
From: David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Playing on a torus changes ladders too!
Cheers,
David
On 20, Feb 2007, at 9:29 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
> I wonder h
Playing on a torus changes ladders too!
Cheers,
David
On 20, Feb 2007, at 9:29 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
I wonder how this comes out on a torus? (where the edges of the
board
wraps around.) Is that an interesting way to play go in general or
does it screw up the game?On a torus, any fi
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 12:27 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> Wasn't
> > Anchorman some version of MC?
One other comment about AnchorMan - it's a "tiny" low resource
program. It's not very strong (1500 on CGOS) but it is a very
simple and fast program. It plays pretty close to full strength
in just a
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 08:20 -0700, Markus Enzenberger wrote:
> On Monday 19 February 2007, Chris Fant wrote:
> > Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
> > large board.
> >
> > For ascetics, the eyes have been filled after both players passed.
> >
> > http://fantius.
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 14:22 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> I have been playing with pure MC players, thanks to Lukas Lew's library.
>
> I noticed that they tend to play silly moves, like putting the opponent
> into atari, even if the move is a self-atari as well. Any reasonable
> player can see th
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 14:10 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> P.S. Was there a good description of what a bot should do to finish a
> game earlier - my current ones play to the bitter end, with only
> 1-point
> eyes left. Might as well quit earlier if I can.
CGOS uses simple rules, you MUST play ou
Chris Fant wrote:
Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
large board.
For ascetics, the eyes have been filled after both players passed.
I think you mean "aesthetics". Ascetics are guys who torture themselves,
and deny themselves pleasure, in a struggle to atta
Looks like a fractal to me. Easy to test: just calculate the fractal
dimension (using e.g. the box counting method) over a range of board sizes. If
you find a fractal (or mult-fractal) relationship - and maybe compare pure MC
against one of the variants - you could probably get a decent pape
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:09:44PM +, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> Le mardi 20 février 2007 13:10, Heikki Levanto a écrit :
> > P.S. Was there a good description of what a bot should do to finish a
> > game earlier - my current ones play to the bitter end, with only 1-point
> > eyes left. Might as
Le mardi 20 février 2007 13:10, Heikki Levanto a écrit :
> P.S. Was there a good description of what a bot should do to finish a
> game earlier - my current ones play to the bitter end, with only 1-point
> eyes left. Might as well quit earlier if I can.
>
Don't play moves which would be self-ata
On Monday 19 February 2007, Chris Fant wrote:
> Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
> large board.
>
> For ascetics, the eyes have been filled after both players passed.
>
> http://fantius.com/RandomGo1600x1200.png
this is very interesting. Can you compute some p
- Original
Heikki Levanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
computer-go
2007-02-20 09:55 Re: [computer-go] Big board
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:24:45PM -0500, Chris Fant wrote:
> > Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
> > large board.
> > For ascetics, the eyes have
I have been playing with pure MC players, thanks to Lukas Lew's library.
I noticed that they tend to play silly moves, like putting the opponent
into atari, even if the move is a self-atari as well. Any reasonable
player can see that it won't work. But as long as there are enough
alternative moves
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:55:50AM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> There is no rule that limits the number of players you can have.
Ok, then it must be - as you say - a problem in my end.
Heikki's debugging rule #1: It is your own fault!
> I suspect there is something wrong in the code, perhaps as a
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 10:41 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have put up two programs on cgos, and they are doing nice. Now I tried
> to put up a third, (Halgo-1.0-500k), and it lost two games on forfeit.
>
> Have I unknowingly stepped on a rule that says something like only two
> program
Hi,
I have put up two programs on cgos, and they are doing nice. Now I tried
to put up a third, (Halgo-1.0-500k), and it lost two games on forfeit.
Have I unknowingly stepped on a rule that says something like only two
programs per person? Or is there something else wrong. As far as I can
see, th
I have a question for the group: How is a miai connection strategy
created for a color enclosed region when their are multiple
enclosing blocks involved with one or more interior defender
blocks? Martin Muller's paper "Recognizing Secure Territories in
Computer Go By Using Static Rules and
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:24:45PM -0500, Chris Fant wrote:
>
> Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
> large board.
>
> For ascetics, the eyes have been filled after both players passed.
>
> http://fantius.com/RandomGo1600x1200.png
> Sorry, no SGF available :)
44 matches
Mail list logo