On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
Any ko fight where the only legal move is suicide a group or pass.
It could be die instead of seki for example (which is pass-alive)
Seki is NOT pass-alive.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, David Doshay wrote:
Chinese, note that SlugGo started passing, indicating that it saw no
purpose in any more moves, at move 239. Here, the boundaries are
clear, the dead stones are clear to a human, and the winner is plenty
clear enough.
Yes, W (mogo) wins by 2.5 pts
But
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap
game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one
was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously
it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the
I think the whole discussion about Japanese vs. Chinese scoring
is moot in the context of silly invasions.
If my opponent passes and
1) I am ahead ... I pass and win.
2) I am behind ... I may start an invasion if I think I have a
chance; loosing a couple more points (Japanese) does not matter.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
i think that the attached initial (13-stone) setup requires life to be
made in the center
rather than the sides or corners, but it looks difficult. a stronger
player can comment, perhaps?
It should be possible to live with an attachment at the 3-3
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
One of the theoretical limitations to
computing power (which was layed out in someones posts) and I have
always understood to be the case, is related to
space - the physical size of the universe.
The problem with higher dimensions is that they are small
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Any coherent higher dimension model should explain which
of the three circumstances is not met, how and why and
without making any particular dimension different from the
others. Something a lot more complicated than just drawing
easy conclusions from
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, terry mcintyre wrote:
surprising amount of sophisticated processing nonetheless. It helps
to have 10^15 processors working in parallel.
it's more like 10^11
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
GenericMC_300K 1455.0
GenericMC_200K 1391.6
GenericMC_11142.9
GenericMC_100K 1453.9
I run theses once a week for a few hours to keep them on the CGOS list.
myCtest1 10k 1075
myCtest5 50k 1385
myCtest25250k1445
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Chris Fant wrote:
When I added code to also prohibit multi-stone suicides in the MC
playouts, I saw the appearance of infinitely long games due to
unrestricted board repetition. So I then had to add the 2x board area
limit. But I also saw a significant drop in strength and
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Chris Fant wrote:
Yes, it plays better when allowing multi-stone suicides but still
prohibiting single-stone suicides. I'm still wondering if anyone else
has tried this.
Probably not as no common ruleset (except ING) allows suicide.
Christoph
The average game-length (incl. 2 passes at the end) for my program
'myCtest' are (lean playouts):
with merci-rule: 99 (+-10)
without: 110 (+-16)
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Would it be possible to publish a little library for others in C?
I will have a place on the main page to download goodies like this.
Yes, but it is still in a transitions phase from the old CGOS
to the new CGOS.
Christoph
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
I have a prototype of the new CGOS server up and running.
How about sorting the cross-tables by opponent name (please
don't distinguish upper/lower-case).
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote:
P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are
free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the
rounds would still be with most of the players.
That introduces a bias towards pairing faster programs against
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Would it be possible to publish a little library for others in C?
I will have a place on the main page to download goodies like this.
Here is the code I am currently using.
Christoph
/*
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
One of the features I want to put into CGOS involves
a new gtp command to inform the program of the opponent,
game number, etc.I have not decided on the format
of this new gtp command and it will of course not
be required that you implement it.I
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
But the client DOES use GTP to speak to the engine. The
idea is that your engine might want to have information
about the opponent. The way Lazarus will use this is
to put this information in it's own log files. When
I'm browsing the logs of Lazarus I
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote:
According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems
pruning not interesting moves using patterns.
Yes, but the UCT part will (sooner or later) explore EVERY path.
Christoph
___
computer-go
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote:
According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems
pruning not interesting moves using patterns.
Yes, but the UCT part will (sooner or later) explore EVERY path.
But then again, if you had
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
For human players a difference of 2 kyu means that the winning ratio of the
stronger player is almost 100%.
Is it? Do you have some statistics? If so, that is interesting, because that
means that neither MoGo nor GnuGo exploit well (comparing to
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Ok the 19x19 server is almost ready.
I would like to get 3 or 4 volunteers to run a copy of the Anchor.
The Anchor will be GnuGo 3.7.10 with these parameters:
gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules
Did you ever say which
On Wed, 23 May 2007, David Doshay wrote:
I thought the first MC Go program was Gobble, 1993, by a physics guy
named Bruegmann. The technique was quite different than today. It was
done as a simulated annealing.
That's the first one I heard of ...
Christoph
On Sun, 27 May 2007, ?ukasz Lew wrote:
Jason, can You tell me why You don't want to use libego instead?
Actually this is open question to all comp-go readers.
Is libego too complicated? Do You have problems with compilation?
Or You are not comfortable with the GNU license? Any other reason?
I
I have a request for the programmers of the weaker than 1800 programs
on the 19x19 CGOS (eg. ControlBoy, Explorer, Dog, AverageLib):
Please run your program overnight (PDT) once in a while to allow
for more precise ratings below 1800.
Thanks,
Christoph (myCtest)
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
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, chrilly wrote:
New lesson learned. It depends on the rule set if something is correct or a
blunder.
So far the Go-masters told me, it does not matter, its practically the same.
Obviously its not. This is not some weired, constructed position, it really
happened and it does
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Darren Cook wrote:
I actually think that under Chinese rules White wins too because
Black owes 1 point for playing the last (and first) move.
I'd not heard that 1pt adjustment before; is it only when black plays
the last move? Do you have a reference, as this page does not
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Darren Cook wrote:
I got this from the AGA rules which I (falsly?) assumed to use
chinese counting (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.html)
I only saw this in section 4, on handicap games:
If the players have agreed to use area counting to score the game (Rule
12),
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Darren Cook wrote:
I got this from the AGA rules which I (falsly?) assumed to use
chinese counting (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.html)
At one time, the Chinese rules compensated White with an extra point
when Black
// Loop to do #1 above
while (p != singletonSimplePass){
if (numMoves keepMax)
moves[numMoves] = p;
workingCopy.play(c,p);
c = c.enemyColor();
p =
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Jason House wrote:
My logic behind stopping at the first pass is that it's highly unlikely
to form life in the void from captured stones. Since capturing the
stones would increase the length of the game and isn't very likely to
change the outcome of the game
But how do
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Jason House wrote:
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Jason House wrote:
My logic behind stopping at the first pass is that it's highly unlikely to
form life in the void from captured stones. Since capturing the stones
would increase the length of the game
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Jason House wrote:
I guess it really depends on what the point of the test is. I'm trying to
understand the performance gap between my AMAF bot(s) and Don's AMAF bots.
For comparison, here's the ratings and # of simulations:
ELO
1434 - ControlBoy- 5000 simulations per
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Jason House wrote:
Are you using AMAF, UCT, or something else?
Nothing at all. Really pure random playouts.
I am working on an AMAF version for comparison ...
If it's no trouble to you, it
would be nice to see them running online while all of this AMAF stuff is
going on.
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Jason House wrote:
I see that myCtest has an AMAF version up on CGOS. Is it possible to share
details of what was done (under the hood) to get it up and running?
'myCtest-xxk' is a pure MC program; no heuristics, no tree, it does
10k (or 50k) light random playouts that do
please re-start.
Thx,
Chrsitoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:28 AM, Jason House wrote:
On 9/28/07, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since there's obviously some kind of major performance gap, for now
I'll aim to align with Anchor_1k. From there, I hope it'll be
easier to diagnose what's going wrong.
Correction: I meant to
Hsu wrote:
If we assume the top Go players calculate about as deeply as the top
chess players do, the result should be a machine that plays Go as well
as Deep Blue played chess.
I don't think this assumption holds.
A high level player reads 25-30 ply sequences (very low branching, but
not a
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
I don't think he was talking about this kind of reading, strong chess
players also read in this sense.
What other kind of reading is there? I was am talking about the
common term (in Go and Chess) reading ahead.
It's harder to do in chess (because the
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Right now we know that Mogo dominates in 9x9. Without CGOS this would
be speculation based on who won the last tournament. But CGOS is not
the right way although it's a useful tool.There needs to be some
kind of testing agency that is fair and
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but my point is that if you want
some kind of certified rating CGOS is not a good choice. You can run
anything on CGOS and claim anything. You could even substitute a
strong human player, if you wanted to.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
But we had a 19x19 server and it WAS NOT interesting. Nobody seemed
willing to play on it.
Maybe that has changed now.
It was not interesting because there was only one competitive
program on it (MoGo). Most people's programs are too weak
at 19x19, but
What happened to the 19x19 CGOS revival?
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/cgosStandings.html
If someone wants to test it, the port is 6919 on machine pc5-120.lri.fr.
10 minutes per side. But only try it if you want to take risks, it is almost
surely
not stable yet, and the connection might be
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Markus Enzenberger wrote:
its not about adding more and more. Its about selecting a few
best-practice norms and conventions. XML is a standard that is
used by a large number of projects and it handles problems on
an intermediate layer that every complicated file format will
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
I think I'm going to restart CGOS 19x19 on boardspace. I'll ping the
group when I'm ready - probably be tomorrow night.
Thanks.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Hideki Kato wrote:
I'd like to ask shorter time settings.
How about a compromise of 20 minutes. That's 4 times the amount
for 9x9 and (about) proportional to the area.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
On Oct 27, 2007, at 9:53 AM, David Fotland wrote:
At 10 minute time limits Many Faces rated over 2000 and was top of
the list.
At 30 minutes it's 1650. Many Faces 11 was tuned for the machines
in the
1990s, and clearly it needs work for modern machines.
I don't understand that. The anchor
On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:17 PM, David Fotland wrote:
NO, it's because gnugo got stronger with longer time limits.
Did it? I thought the anchor (gnugo-level-10) plays just that, at
level10. How would it get stronger?
When the time
limit got longer Many Faces started taking 1 minute instead of 5
On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:59 PM, David Fotland wrote:
Because gnugo has time control and when time is short it adjusts
the level
down between moves. I think with th 30 minute control it is
staying at
level 10 the whole game.
But even now it is only using 3 minutes ... it was not short of
On Oct 28, 2007, at 11:16 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
Don's idea of packing in blitz games between the longer games makes
a lot of sense; it would enable a second track for those who want
results more quickly.
I too like that idea.
Christoph
___
I think a lot of the early CGOS ratings were (are?) very skewed. It
had two
anchors at a (arbitrary) fixed distance of 600 but of almost the same
strength
(win-rate 49-51%). It will take several days to overcome that.
Chrisotph
___
computer-go
On Oct 28, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Don Dailey wrote
Jason House wrote:
gtp has specific support for handicap games. If we do handicap, I'd
prefer to see the server use those specialized commands.
Of course that's better, but I'm talking about a quick and dirty
solution. I may never implement
On Oct 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Jason House wrote:
For all of us in the bot-making kiddie pool, it's exceptionally
helpful to have reference implementations of basic algorithms
running on the server. When playing with AMAF, I found the
reference AMAF bots very helpful. Now that I'm playing
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jason House wrote:
no problem. I will start 'myCtest-10k-UCT' later today.
How does this compare to myCtest-10k that previously ran on CGOS?
myCtest-10k: 1 random playouts (1050 ELO)
myCtest-10k-UCT: 1 random playouts guided by a UCT search (1350 ELO)
milestone 2: Each network-node builds its own tree using UCT, but
information is only combined at the root. This version will play much
better because each node is smarter. The bandwidth will be higher. I can
only guess at the scaling behavior, but this milestone might be the 80%
solution.
I
On Oct 29, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Jason House wrote:
Thanks!
I'm not sure if my engine will support 50k simulations without
running out of time in long games. Is it possible to do 10k?
no problem. I will start 'myCtest-10k-UCT' later today.
Christoph
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
myCtest-10k-UCT: 1 random playouts guided by a UCT search (1350 ELO)
* nodes are expanded after 50 runs through them
* UCT_score = win_ratio + 0.5 * sqrt(log(N)/n)
I added variants with different expansion
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too strong,
Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart tricks.
If CrazyStoneH3 is given white and plays: 2.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
there's not really much sense in a game 'won' in the first 10 moves.
i.e. i mean that it doesn't have much intrinsic meaning. i think
it's fair to throw away game results that have this feature to them,
then only cooperating programs will have their
It appears as if both CGOS servers crashed ...
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
The whole idea is to not have to change the server. If I'm going to
change the server I might as well do handicap the right way.
But this is a trivial change compared to dealing with an
ad hoc ELO/handicap conversion.
Christoph
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
or to simply not include the results of such games,
so as not to break the protocol for machines that
wanted to have such games take place.
What would break?
Server - clientB: genmove
clientB - Server:PASS
server - clientW: play PASS
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen. The game might start like this:
pass
pass
pass
etc.
And if, there is no harm done, as at some point the 'self-handicapped'
program will start
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
So the suggestion is to throw out games that end in less that 20 moves?
No, just have the server not stop games before move-20.
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen. The game might start like
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Jason House wrote:
I think we're in agreement. I didn't know about the 5k limit, but that's
essentially what I was thinking.
The 5k limit is only true for heavy playouts (Don wrote that for
'Anchorman'). light playout don't plateau that early but are
intrinsically weaker,
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Jason House wrote:
What's myCtest-V-008 and myCtest-V-009?
I am currently testing various combinations for the
node-expansion threshold and UCT-score factor 'k':
UTC_score = wins/sims + k*sqrt(log(N)/n_i)
PS: Another resign bug game (affecting myCtest-V-0009):
Game 180106 (AyaMC2_1CPU vs ControlBoy) on 9x9-GGOS shows how
important it is to implement super-ko.
White is so sure of it's win that it misses several
oppotunities to finish the deal.
I haven't done it myself yet, because it does not happen
very ofen, but when it happens like in this game,
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Joshua Shriver wrote:
What is a super-ko?
positional super-ko: No board-position may ever be repeated.
Have a look at game
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/SGF/2007/11/01/180106.sgf
for an example.
Christoph
___
computer-go
It appears that CGOS (9x9) is down.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Benjamin Teuber wrote:
I don't think there's something different at different depths in the tree..
To update RAVE after a simulation, for each child of a node you visited
during that simulation, you update if the move leading to the child was
played later (until the end of
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Jason House wrote:
I implemented this yesterday. In doing so, I realized I didn't know the
proper way to initialize new leaves in the UCT tree. MoGo papers seem to
talk about a progression from always picking an unexplored leaf (AKA using
infinity for the upper confidence
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote:
Actually, gtp already has a command 'name' that returns the program name. It
would be helpful if the cgos script would ask the programs name (if it
supports it), and pass that to the server. The server could then display it
on the cross-table page for
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Nick Wedd wrote:
Running a _rated_ bot on KGS is another matter. This requires active
intervention by an admin, which is unlikely to be granted. While your bot is
unrated, it won't be able to play any rated games, and won't acquire a
rating.
What is the reasoing behind
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote:
I may be wrong, but I suspect most of bots specify the total number of
simulations to play, not per move candidate. Thus, your '1000' should be
compared against a '81000' in the beginning of the game. That sounds like an
overly large number to me.
Oh!
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Chris Fant wrote:
I would like some language recommendations. Requirements:
Runs in Linux
Has garbage collection
Fast
Well supported
Can interface with MPI (can make C calls)
Forget 'garbage collection' and use 'C'.
Christoph
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
I must be a dinosaur - at least a minimalist - but I don't understand
the big deal about library support that has been mentioned a lot here.
:-)
My Go program doesn't use any libraries except the standard C
libraries.Since it's written in C, I
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Also, now that I think about it, I do use Mersenne Twister - I just
forgot about it because this was a late addition to my program. I will
look at the SIMD version - just using the non-SIMD version was a big
speedup over the standard library rand()
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Hellwig Geisse wrote:
The type of software I had in mind was an interactive system,
running for days (or even months) without restarting, together
with the possibility of creating function closures. I find it
hard to imagine how you can do that without a garbage collector.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Hellwig Geisse wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 12:30 -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
I write (astronomical) instrument control software in C that
runs for days (upto weeks). I call malloc() when I need memory
and free() when the particular sub-task is done ... no problem
I don't know if I caused it or if it just was a coincidence:
I killed my bot shortly before a new round would start, re-compiled
and re-started it within some 30 seconds. Immediately I receive
a 'newgame' and then a 'genmove'
genmove b -1195176189379
And now CGOS hangs ... hope this helps.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Petr Baudis wrote:
If there is a capture of more than 1 stone during the random-games then
count the number of white and black stones on the board.
If there are more than twice as many stones of one color then
score current board position
If this is consistent
On Nov 21, 2007, at 12:16 PM, Raymond Wold wrote:
This assumes that to be cutting edge, cycles matter. If your
algorithms
are such that doubling the execution time available means a 0.01%
increase in wins (this is *obviously* not true for a Monte Carlo-heavy
program, but might be for
On Nov 21, 2007, at 4:06 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
However, for me the coding time is very small even though the
development time is large. I spend more time thinking about the
program than coding it, and I spend a great deal of time waiting
on the
computer, because I have no clue what will
On Nov 25, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Ian Osgood wrote:
On Nov 25, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Ian Osgood wrote:
Folks might be interested in the Common Lisp chess program
Symbolic by Steven J. Edwards (of PGN fame). From his ICC
description:
Symbolic is a C++/Lisp chessplaying program written by S.
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Harri Salakoski wrote:
I use pure java solutions when it is possible. plain E3 atleast don't seem
work, tried many other combinations also without success.
E3 \n
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Ben Lambrechts wrote:
I was reading in the old computer go magazines.
In number 2 page 27 I found the attached article.
There was no attached article. Can you provide a link?
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Russell Wallace wrote:
I haven't seen Leela before, but the claim of high dan-level
performance on 9x9 is certainly interesting.
I don't think 2200 ELO on the 9x9 CGOS is equivalent to 'high dan-level'
play.
Christoph
___
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, David Fotland wrote:
It's not clear if you are talking about professional Dan level or Amateur
Dan level. I've played the top 9x9 programs at 9x9, and so have several
other amateur Dan players, and I think we all agree that the top 9x9
programs have reached amateur Dan
Robert Jasiek wrote:
Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly strong
programs?
Would it be possible to publish the MonteGNU code?
If yes, then a few dan-players could play each at least 20 games
against it and publish their results. That would allow for a
rough
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
note: this is only to estimate the playing strength relative to a 19x19
player since there is no real system that makes sense for 9x9. I
would simple put this on the crosstable web pages in parenthesis. e.g.
Rated: 2410 (1.1d est.)
I
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:
terry mcintyre wrote:
Some of the MonteGNU code was just released on CVS. Check out Gnugo's
development pages.
Don't expect that code to do better than 2000 on CGOS though
(mgtest2). The remaining code used by MonteGNU is still too messy.
That's
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris Fant wrote:
MoGo. But it seems that it hasn't been playing recently (anyway, you
would have had no idea of the settings and hardware used). You could
play against it on your own hardware to understand it's strength
against a human, and let it get a CGOS rating using
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Yes, that would work.
Some humans also could play on CGOS (just for a while) to establish
a conversion from CGOS-ELO to human-ranks.
It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but
the human would have to be willing to sit and play
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but
the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment
they were scheduled.
You are right ... it's very awkward. I lost one game by typo
and another by time.
Christoph
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
But I don't really want humans playing except as a
special experiment.
I agree. But it's an interesting experiment ...
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Joshua Shriver wrote:
I've been working hard and hope to have an alpha program on CGOS by
Christmas. Know last time I asked this, one useful reply gave just 4-5
commands that were essential.
I have the full spec, and nothing look terribly hard, but I want to get the
minimal
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Joel Veness wrote:
I have been thinking about making a version of Goanna (~2250 on CGOS)
public, once it plays in a human friendly way.
Thanks,
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but
the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment
they were scheduled.
You are right ... it's very awkward. I lost one
1 - 100 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
