Re: [Computer-go] KGS bot tournaments - what are your opinions?

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Dave Dyer wrote: > > How about handicapping the hardware based on time. Programs running > on more powerful hardware would get less time. > > I think that's a good idea. Programs could even aquire a time ranking, depending on their success in

Re: [Computer-go] KGS bot tournaments - what are your opinions?

Hi, just my 2 cents: 1. "Reducing computing power." Just let me quote the standings of the last 9x9 tournament. 1) 18 Cores 2) 80 Cores 3) 12 Cores 4) 288 Cores 5) 8 Cores Moreover, using the 18 cores of place number one is affordable to everyone as Remi outlined. Still, i would compete in

[Computer-go] PostDoc: General Video Game AI

I have an opening for a post-doc (senior research officer) to work on General Video Game AI. The aim is to further develop hybrid approaches involving: · Monte Carlo Tree Search · Rolling Horizon Evolutionary Algorithms · Deep Neural Networks The methods will be

[Computer-go] Nao Go anyone?

. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7JJDT4jcA0=PL4y5WtsvtduozO-9oG5nZZI8IPUD6EDif=12 ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] KGS bot tournaments - what are your opinions?

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Tobias Graf wrote: > 1. "Reducing computing power." Just let me quote the standings of the last > 9x9 tournament. > 1) 18 Cores > 2) 80 Cores > 3) 12 Cores > 4) 288 Cores > 5) 8 Cores Counting 'cores' is a bad idea; 'core' is mostly just a marketing

Re: [Computer-go] Computer-go Digest, Vol 69, Issue 14

urnaments. > > It works while the tournament is still running, though only between > > rounds.I could build a current crosstable each round during a > > tournament if there is any demand for it. > > > > -- > > Nick Wedd mapr...@gmail.com <mailto:mapr...@gmail.co

Re: [Computer-go] KGS bot tournaments - what are your opinions?

Tobias and all, Tobias Graf: <56164f25.8010...@gmx.de>: >Hi, >just my 2 cents: > >1. "Reducing computing power." Just let me quote the standings of the >last 9x9 tournament. >1) 18 Cores >2) 80 Cores >3) 12 Cores >4) 288 Cores >5) 8 Cores > >Moreover, using the 18 cores of place number one is