Don Dailey wrote:
7x7 isn't solved by computer, but the best ones play it extrememly well.
When looking through sample game trees of small board computer play, my
impression was that by far too many "trivial" moves were not analysed
(properly): single passes or seemingly bad plays. When I stu
Zen has almost got to 2d level on KGS,
http://www.gokgs.com/graphPage.jsp?user=zen19. Unfortunately, it doesn't
play since May, 8.
1. Is there any hope that Zen19 will play again on KGS? I'm looking forward
to it getting to higher dan levels.
2. It's been mentioned earlier that Zen is planned to b
I'm currently concentrating on the opening. I can now build a UCT tree of about 14 billion nodes before I run out of storage. Concentrating so much on one
position only makes sense where it can be reused, which is at the start of the game. On 7x7, creating that many nodes takes about a day. I
Michael Alford wrote:
>The game of Go has four stages, joban, chuban, o-yose, and yose. I
>expect computer programs to be very good at yose (not counting some of
>the throw-in stuff on first line), pretty good at o-yose, good at
>chuban, and utterly worthless in joban. Now, in joban you play fus
delurk/
I have a bet with Frank de Groot, that bet is that he cannot write a
program that can beat me in an even game before I die (I am currently 64
yrs, the bet is several year old), this came about from his insisting
that the game is a FSM, which may be true in theory, the problem is the
w
There is more than one optimal line of play. A few lines are only
optimal with certain rulesets
Sent from my iPhone
On May 21, 2009, at 5:54 PM, terry mcintyre
wrote:
Has anyone analyzed the lines of play by today's top programs at
7x7? Does it come down to a single line of perfect play
Has anyone analyzed the lines of play by today's top programs at 7x7? Does it
come down to a single line of perfect play, or are there interesting variations?
All of this is, of course, contingent on the ruleset.
Terry McIntyre
Any system of entrusting the government to judge and correct it
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.)
On May 21, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Michael Alford
wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
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
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Michael Alford wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
>
>> 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 <
Don Dailey wrote:
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
mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>> wrote:
What was the consensus on 7x7 k
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 duri
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
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-
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.de>wrote:
> Martin Mueller wrote:
> > In my view, Zen and CrazyStone are c
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 Pampl
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 more
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 X
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 when
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 res
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
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
> Subjec
21 matches
Mail list logo
