On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Christoph Birk wrote:
We should be careful about any conclusions ... your pairing algorithm
currently creates leela-vs-leela games only.
May I recommend removing most of the Leela instances ASAP and add
them one-by-one later. This way the alorithm would be forced to
mix up
On Feb 23, 2008, at 7:51 PM, Jason House wrote:
I mean, why do you have to download a client to run locally? Why
can't
you just use GTP directly against a socket?
That's similar to what I did.
I implemented the CGOS protocol directly into my Go-programm.
It's very straight forward and I
On Feb 24, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Raymond Wold wrote:
Do you have any notes on what you found out about the protocol? Any
open source code?
I looked at the CGOS-client code (TCL script) and re-implemented it
in C, then I
linked that file to my Go-program. That makes it specific to my
program,
On Feb 24, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Álvaro Begué wrote:
like the current scheme where a little program talks GTP to the
engine and then something else (I don't care what) to the server.
It would be better if the little client were written in Perl (there
used to be a Perl version but I don't know
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Tim Foden wrote:
myCtest-AMAF is the final version ... I think it uses the 0.75 exponent.
Thanks. It seems to me that it may be worth trying 0.7 and 0.8 to see if
0.75 is a maximum or not.
As far as I remember I did that test ... and 0.75 turned out to be
be best.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Recently I have lost some faith in my belief that 7.0 komi is right on
9x9 with Chinese CGOS style rules. I was never absolutely SURE of
it, but I believed it with a high degree of confidence. I still
believe 7.0 is correct, but I'm somewhat less
On Feb 15, 2008, at 3:29 AM, Tim Foden wrote:
In your pure MC program, do you use UCB1 to choose the next move
to search at the root? If not, what algorithm are you using? I'm
currently using UCB1 for my test in Fluke.
No, it uses a random move even at the root node.
myCtest does NOT
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
The funny thing about MC scoring is that if white DOES win, then it
doesn't matter what black plays, everything loses!
That would mean that in a scalability study, where colors are
alternated, really strong versions of Mogo would score poorly against
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Magnus Persson wrote:
Hence in the normal situation komi must be 9 in order to make the 45/36 split
on the board become jigo. At least in area scoring. A simple empirical thing
is to check the results of CGOS 9x9 right now. All white vicories are even
numbers + 1/2 i.e.
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Magnus Persson wrote:
I corrected this sensei page to give komi 9 for 7x7 and added a link to the
sgf file John Tromp provides with the analysis.
Thanks.
Similarily one find that in very simple games on 9x9, but where the moves are
good solid shape white almost always
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
With 20 minute games, some people succeed in winning games
against the release 3 of MoGo. But for
X-hours-per-move, I don't know.
What are the self-play results (white vs. black) for hour-long
games of Mogo?
I am wondering if the proper komi for 9x9
On Feb 11, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
My feelings on this seem to match at least one source:
Look here:http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi
Here is an excerpt:
It is widely believed that the correct komi is independent of board
size
for all but the smallest boards. For area
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Is your question whether 7.0 or 8.0 is the best komi? Or do you
suspect a different 1/2 komi value is best?
I wonder what the true komi is ... I don't know (nobody knows?) if
it's fractional or not; eg. for 7x7 it is 9.0.
Christoph
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
I don't bet, but if I did, I would bet that it's 7 or 8, and I'm
fairly certain that with best play the game would end with 7 extra
points for black.
I think this was discussed at great length 2 or 3 years ago.
I know ... I brought it up again because
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Michael Alford wrote:
i believe correct komi for 9x9 with pros is 9.5
That's way too large.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Mark Boon wrote:
At the moment it's not possible to develop iPhone applications. An SDK comes
out this months and we have to wait and see what it supports.
http://developer.apple.com/iphone/devcenter/
Christoph
___
computer-go
Unfortunately, I used level 10 in the gnugo only games but in the big
study we use level 8. It's my understanding there is little difference
between these 2 but we can probably assume Mogo might be a little better
than indicated relative to the big scalability study.
Don't you think it would
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
I restarted the test, will run 1000 games per level instead of 500 and
I'm running on a different computer and only 1 instance so expect this
to take a couple of weeks.I'll report any results that are not
similar to the previous if it seems noteworthy
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
1800 is gnugo, so this puts top programs near 1k (2d for extreme
mogo_18) this seems reasonable to me.
Are you confusing 19x19 and 9x9?
The ELO/KGS table is for 19x19, while mogo_18 plays 9x9.
Christoph
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, terry mcintyre wrote:
It has to be said that the game of Go differs from Chess in an
important way.
There are many games where a skilled player can definitively say, this
game is won by so-and-so regardless of how clever the opponent may be,
unless so-and-so makes an
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
I wish I knew how that translates to win expectancy (ELO rating.)Is
3 kyu at this level a pretty significant improvement?
in the order of 90%
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Álvaro Begué wrote:
Of course the value of A is the interesting number here. If they are using
anything like the common UCT exploration/exploitation formula, I think we
will see a roof fairly soon. In my own experiments at long time controls,
the program would spend entirely
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
This bias was clear in 7x7 - I don't expect to see it here but I will
check when there are enough games at the upper levels.
I beg you ... add Mogo_14 to the study, please.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
Google finds it:
http://tao.lri.fr/Papers/thesesTAO/SylvainGellyThesis.pdf
That is NOT the latest version. Please at least let me put the latest
version on my web site, it took me so long to correct it :).
Where may we find the latest version?
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
I probably should have put Lazarus in the study instead - it's a good
bit stronger and now I would like to know if it has a similar problem!
Why don't you just add Lazarus; and Mogo_14 ?
It appears you've got enough CPU power ...
Christoph
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, ivan dubois wrote:
in theory, infinitely scalable. For example, the folowing algorithm is
infinitely scalable :
Analyse the complete mini-max tree of the game. If enough time to
finish, returns the correct move, if not, return a random move.
Now, is this algorithm
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, ivan dubois wrote:
When people say that MC infinite scalability is mathematicaly proven,
they do not refer to the definition you give, they refer to the
definition I used.
No, they don't. At least not most people on this list.
Christoph
On Jan 21, 2008, at 5:50 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
When this test is completed, let's use the infrastructure I created
here to run a self-play mogo test by pushing mogo to higher levels.
I can keep the mogo vs mogo data intact from this study and
transfer it
to the next (it's in a database
On Jan 18, 2008, at 9:41 AM, Nick Wedd wrote:
The Formal/Open restriction was created to encourage commercial
programs to compete. These programs' authors were wary of entering
them in events in which they might have to play a whole bunch of
GNU Go versions, so the Formal division was set
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Michael Williams wrote:
It is a very nice graph. I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
You and me both!
Just a couple of other comments:
The graph was smoothed with gnuplot's smooth bezier function - but
the
raw
On Jan 17, 2008, at 3:44 AM, Song wrote:
Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?
Yes, it is also illegeal under AGA and CGOS rules.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Jan 17, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
However, I don't remember if I calibrated the graph or whether it's
arbitrary.It seems like I had a version of gnugo as an anchor,
but I
don't see it in the graph.I could have simply extrapolated from
CGOS
for one of the version.
I
On Jan 17, 2008, at 6:11 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
However, I don't remember if I calibrated the graph or whether it's
arbitrary.It seems like I had a version of gnugo as an
anchor, but I
don't see it in the graph.I could have simply
On Jan 15, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Harri Salakoski wrote:
This is a mistake. There are often moves that are illegal for
black that
are big for white. If you don't let white play there, white can
lose a lot
of points. Connections through false eyes are one example.
Yep agree that, knowing that
On Jan 16, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I have often wondered if UCT and Monte Carlo play-outs would have even
been discovered a few years ago.It could very well be that this
technology HAD to wait for today. Mogo and CrazyStone would not be
impressive on a 386.
I heard about
On Jan 15, 2008, at 10:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, by easier I mean faster. Also, I think single point suicide is
more likely to lead to infinite loops, depending on your eye-
filling rule.
- Dave Hillis
I don't understand why anyone would allow suicide in playouts. No
commonly
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
It was my understanding the bot was losing 2 seconds per move. 1/2
second would probably not fix this.
It was my understanding that the netlag to the Philippines was about
380 ms; accounting for an additiaonal 15% packet loss and we end up
at about 440
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Eric Boesch wrote:
I was going to suggest copying KGS's no time cost for a pass within a
reasonable number of seconds rule, but I see Erik just did that.
Well, I'll just second the suggestion. Unfortunately, the reasonable
number of seconds would probably have to be low, just
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Better would be some kind of victory declaration.The program claims
victory - which means that it agrees that every move from now on (for
itself) is a pass move.
I disagree. Increasing the time-allowance for a PASS move is simpler
and more elegant
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Christoph,
Let me know when you are finished, what name you are playing under and
I will do the bayeselo thing to get a better figure.
I am playing using the 'tast-3k' account. Right, now I have 71 games
and a rating of 1979 ELO.
Also, I can
throw
It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around
2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated
player (better more) to get the scale.
If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email
at ccbirk at gmail dot com.
Christoph
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Are you playing on CGOS? Did you actually build your own GUI for this?
As I wrote in a previous email, I re-used my 'myCtest' program
but replaced the 'genmove' command with a simple GUI. Just took
me a few hours.
I don't want people playing on CGOS
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
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, 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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 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 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, 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
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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
101 - 200 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
