The 2008 US Go Congress is August 2-9, which overlaps with the end of
the Beijing events. This makes a case for holding any such tournament
near the end of the Congress. Thanks for the tip!
In related news, it looks like the 1st World Mind Sports Games
(sorry, humans only) will also be held
On 6/16/07, Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's still a long way off, but I hope to organize a computer Go tournament
at the 2008 Congress here in Portland, Oregon.
Would that be in August? It might not fit well with the events in Beijing.
see: http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/eve
My program tends to amplify noise fluctuations. If it's presented with
several equally good moves, it will pick winners and losers early on. It looks
bad. On the other hand, tweaking it up to win more games against Gnugo and on
CGOS, has made it *more* prone to do this. That is my subject
On 6/16/07, Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They've finally posted the schedule for the Congress:
http://congress.usgo.org/schedule_20070614.pdf
I'll be there, and I presume Erik will. Anyone else?
I definitely want to be there to meet other computer go programmers. It's
likely tha
They've finally posted the schedule for the Congress:
http://congress.usgo.org/schedule_20070614.pdf
I'll be there, and I presume Erik will. Anyone else?
As for a meeting among Go programmers, how about the afternoon of
Saturday, August 4? We'll be done with our US Open games by then, and
I
Its like small AI we all just want a box we can strap on our head so we
don't have to think :)
Common consensus from dual language people Java has as many implementation
issues as C, even though they obscured by a cloud of proselytizing (or
prophylactic). But, all things being equal there is no
On 6/15/07, Erik van der Werf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So far, Steenvreter has never played on CGOS. I'm very busy with work,
so it will take a while before I have time to put it up for some
games. Also to be honest, I'm not really that interested. I guess CGOS
is nice if you have no other way
If you want compare pure efficiency (without taking
into account development costs, including maintenace
costs, clarity of code, etc.) C will win. period.
Learning curve for the java language is quite small.
(like pascal, thats why they used to use pascal as an
introductory language. Nowadays it
> Also I've found:
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all
>
> Strict 1/2 C++ speed.
more surprising to me, i suppose, is that C is apparently more expressive --
the size of the code is smaller for the C implementations than for java ones.
that's just pure comedy t
> Also I've found:
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all
>
> Strict 1/2 C++ speed.
not to mention 10x the memory usage of C.
s.
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate
Stunning data.
I suggest list members to look at this papers.
Also I've found:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all
Strict 1/2 C++ speed.
--- Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> The JIT compiler can optimize away a lot of these
> things.
>
> For those
the point equivalence classes are easy enough to define. points are
either in a size-1 class (the center point, can be ignored), a size-4
class (axes, both vert/horiz. and diagonal), or a size-8 class (all other
points on the board).
for each tuple of points in the equivalence class, normalize wh
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 10:30 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
> On 6/16/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:54 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
> > > So far, Steenvreter has never played on CGOS. I'm very busy with work,
> > > so it will take a while before I have ti
What part of a go program written in C or C++ are you guys having
portability problems with? In dimwit there might be some assumptions,
like ints being at least 32 bits, that are not portable, and we use a
64-bit type, which is not described in the C++ standard (the C99
standard does have one). Ot
libego is a very optimised library. indeed, very hard
to change. If it fits your needs, go for it. Its
simply the best you can do.
BUT, If you want to try different MCGO approachs with
libego, I'm sure it will be far more hard to change
than using slowish java.
If you want to compare it with Go
i'm simply stunned. i'll have to check it out.
s.
- Original Message
From: Hellwig Geisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 1:39:19 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Java hounds salivate over this:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 15:12 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote:
There are two distinct concepts here. There is precision and there is
accuracy. Your test will test precision (how exact the estimate is), but it
fails to test accuracy (a measure of how close the mean is to the actual
value). But, I do think that knowing the precision is useful. If the
pre
It seems generally accepted that MC or UCT programs are weakest in the
opening. My own experience matches this too. Some times I get the idea
that my program doesn't know at all what it is doing the first few
moves. I propose a simple test to see if that is the case. Before doing
it, I'd like to he
On 6/16/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:54 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
> So far, Steenvreter has never played on CGOS. I'm very busy with work,
> so it will take a while before I have time to put it up for some
> games. Also to be honest, I'm not really that
"Robin Kramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So if there was any language which allows a programmer to port their
> code to be compileable and executable on a wide variety of systems
> it is C.
Hey, are C and Java are all you guys know about?
What about Ada? I'd say it's much easier to write por
20 matches
Mail list logo
