Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I believe humans play much stronger too at those time controls. Unless of course they are playing many games and are not really focused on any particular game. The unless above is very important. When I play on a turn-based server (LittleGolem, Dragon, OGS) I generally spend _less_ time on each move than I would at medium time limits of 25 moves in 10 minutes. And judging by the moves my opponents make, so do some of them. Nick -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 17:25 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I believe humans play much stronger too at those time controls. Unless of course they are playing many games and are not really focused on any particular game. The unless above is very important. When I play on a turn-based server (LittleGolem, Dragon, OGS) I generally spend _less_ time on each move than I would at medium time limits of 25 moves in 10 minutes. And judging by the moves my opponents make, so do some of them. Yes, I think there is an important difference between casual play and competitive play. I don't know if there is anything like correspondence play in GO, but serious correspondence players in Chess put a huge amount of energy into each game. Of course there is reputation, money and status usually on the line. I don't know if this is very popular any longer due to the Internet but I'm going back a few years. I played 2 games with a friend from another state by mail (not email) using postcards many many years ago, well before I became a tournament player. That's part of the reason I know something about it. I also know one of the top correspondence players of a few years ago and have many conversations about this with other correspondence players. When I played those 2 games, I probably spent at least 30 minutes on every move. But I spent much more on some of the move. When I sensed that a move was game-changing critical to winning or losing I spent many hours on it.I found a way to draw a game I was losing (due to an earlier speculative sacrifice) that without question I would not have found if this had been a long tournament games. I wish I had those games because I am hundreds of ELO stronger than I was back then - I might laugh but I'm guessing the game was played at a higher level than I would play a game today over the board, despite my greater skill now. - Don Nick ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results
From my experience, DGS is not comparable to correspondence chess; it isn't anywhere near that competivive. It is generally a way to play a casual game over a longish period of time. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster - Original Message From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:14:49 AM Subject: Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 17:25 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I believe humans play much stronger too at those time controls. Unless of course they are playing many games and are not really focused on any particular game. The unless above is very important. When I play on a turn-based server (LittleGolem, Dragon, OGS) I generally spend _less_ time on each move than I would at medium time limits of 25 moves in 10 minutes. And judging by the moves my opponents make, so do some of them. Yes, I think there is an important difference between casual play and competitive play. I don't know if there is anything like correspondence play in GO, but serious correspondence players in Chess put a huge amount of energy into each game. Of course there is reputation, money and status usually on the line. I don't know if this is very popular any longer due to the Internet but I'm going back a few years. I played 2 games with a friend from another state by mail (not email) using postcards many many years ago, well before I became a tournament player. That's part of the reason I know something about it. I also know one of the top correspondence players of a few years ago and have many conversations about this with other correspondence players. When I played those 2 games, I probably spent at least 30 minutes on every move. But I spent much more on some of the move. When I sensed that a move was game-changing critical to winning or losing I spent many hours on it.I found a way to draw a game I was losing (due to an earlier speculative sacrifice) that without question I would not have found if this had been a long tournament games. I wish I had those games because I am hundreds of ELO stronger than I was back then - I might laugh but I'm guessing the game was played at a higher level than I would play a game today over the board, despite my greater skill now. - Don Nick ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 10:37 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote: From my experience, DGS is not comparable to correspondence chess; it isn't anywhere near that competivive. It is generally a way to play a casual game over a longish period of time. So it might be interesting to use a monte-carlo engine to play just to see what happens. I considered making a computer server that works like this - but it's rather complicated. The idea is that there is no time limit for the game (as long as you move at least once a week or something) and you can play as many games as you wish simulataneously (although your bot might play them one at a time.) You don't have to be on line all the time either, the client just grabs game info and moves it back and forth as needed. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, steve uurtamo wrote: uucgs. could probably be written as a small wrapper around uucp over ethernet. :) At that pace you may just do it by hand ... sending the move by email. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results
Dragon Go Server does have some sort of wrapper which enables programs to connect to the server. For a while, Gnugo was a participant on DGS. Last I checked, it was using .NET, but they may have other options by this time. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster - Original Message From: Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:33:59 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, steve uurtamo wrote: uucgs. could probably be written as a small wrapper around uucp over ethernet. :) At that pace you may just do it by hand ... sending the move by email. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:03:09PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: My program wouldn't do well as it would not understand dame and other Japanese complexities. It should not do too badly - if you play by the chinese rules, you will do quite well by the japanese as well. Perhaps some of the opponents will find you silly not passing earlier, but so be it. -H -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] scalability study - final results
That still doesn't deal with dame though. Dame points always come out as not owned much by either side.The algorithm might be to do a simple test for dame and if it looks like a dame point and the ownership map is close to neutral, then it's probably a dame point. Maybe dame isn't that hard to detect - I don't know much about this. Yeah, it doesn't seem like dames would be that hard to detect. I was thinking more about over-invading and over-defending. Those seem like the ones that would lose your game for you. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
