It seems there is almost no interest in 13x13 cgos. There is usually no
program there.
Does it make sense to keep it?
David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
The scary strong Rybka program claims to be weak tactically. The
developers say that problem solving skill does not correlate strongly
with playing strength and they don't tune or care about that.
I've found the same thing for go. I have a large tactical problem set, and
I use it
You really can't conclude much about any mogo strength improvement from just
one game.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Waite
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 7:54 AM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: [computer-go] yet a mogo vs human game
* -
I wrote the evaluation in the early 1980s. Multicore and threads was far
from a consideration. The big issue was how to fit all the core data in 400
KB and make it fast enough to run well on an x286 processor at about 20 MHz.
:(
I wrote the playout code in April.
David
This doesn't really
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Osgood
This is a different kind of opening book than I'm thinking of. You
are both talking about cached computation, whereas I consider an
opening book as codified theory and wisdom
I hope that David Fotland can chime in here on value of joseki
libraries on program strength.
Also, which existing classical program is considered the best semeai
player?
Ian
I don't know that joseki knowledge mad Many Faces stronger. Go Intellect
always used to turn off the joseki
Sorry, but I can't let this statement go past. The go programs in the 90s
did local search, but not much global search. For example Many Faces did a
one ply global search, with a variable depth quiescence search. I added an
alpha-beta search to Many Faces last year, and it made a huge
.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:31 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: RE: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 20:10 -0700, David Fotland wrote:
Sorry
First, thank you very much, Don, for giving us a reliable 19x19 server.
Please consider increasing the time a program stays on the list until it
ages off. I guess you drop programs from the ratings page after some time
that depends on the number of games they have played. Since 19x19 games
take
using bayeselo of program on the 19x19
server. I have a script in place so that I can update this at will
and
I may run this every few hours or so, probably starting tomorrow.
http://cgos.boardspace.net/19x19/bayes_19x19.html
- Don
On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 08:51 -0700, David Fotland
Unfortunately the Cotsen conflicts with the Taizhou tournament this year.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of terry mcintyre
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 4:47 AM
To: computer go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Osgood
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:50 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
On Aug 9, 2008, at 8:30 AM, David Fotland wrote:
Unfortunately the Cotsen conflicts
The supercomputer nodes did not have shared memory. Mogo uses shared memory
within a node, but between nodes it uses MPI message passing. The
supercomputer has low latency connections between nodes, and the Mogo team
has said that the strength scales better on systems with this kind of
All three anchors have been off-line since yesterday.
David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Are the 19x19 web pages working? I put up the weak many faces bots, and
they are playing games, but they are not showing up on the web pages.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008
a win for GNU under Japanese
rules,
but the actual result is a win for for Leela under Chinese rules.
During the final round, David Fotland fixed and validated his multi-
threaded code.
This version of Many Faces won an exhibition game with GNU Go. This
version will also play in tomorrow's
I keep liberty counts.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason House
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 6:43 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Ladders and UCT again
On Aug 2, 2008, at 4:31 AM, Gunnar
algorithms?
Cheers,
Lukasz
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 19:36, Hideki Kato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
David Fotland: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I keep liberty counts.
Me too. Also is Hiroshi.
-Hideki
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL
I never used it. I wrote my code after Mogo said they had abandoned it, so
I never even tried it.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Stogin
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:45 AM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
There can be more than 3 kos in a cycle. There are some pathological cases
of loops involving captures of two-stone groups, but I've never seen this in
a real game.
Here are some example odd positions:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/bestiary.html
I only use proximity in the search. My playouts are pretty light.
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 4:54 PM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Incremental move weights
I use
I've been working on combining UCT search with Many Faces for about 6 months
now. Since I'm entering the computer go tournaments at the go congresses, I
decided to go public on the go servers.
Mfgo12-0617 is Many Faces' engine with UCT search, running on a single 2.3
GHz CPU. It seems
It irks me a little that Linux people refuse to consider porting their
programs to Windows :) With cygwin, it's pretty easy to port Linux
programs. Since these programs work on CGOS they have a gtp interface, so
they don't even need cygwin. Just recompile using gcc and use a free GTP
windows
I didn't mean to start a war. I was reacting to the word chauvinistic
which to me implies a willful, unfair bias. I use linux and Windows. I
ship Windows products solely because the installed base is much higher. If
I were to set up a tournament and only had time to support one platform, it
I strongly agree with Remi. Nick is going out of his way to allow people to
enter, and putting a lot of time to set this up. He deserves praise and
thanks, not complaints.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rémi
tournament. Both were undefeated.
My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/40/index.html. It is
quite short, but this in no way reflects on the participants. The
standard of play was particularly high.
I would, as usual, appreciate it if readers would report mistakes.
David
I'd like to register ManyFaces1 for formal and ManyFaces2 for open.
ManyFaces1 will be running on one core of a 2.4 GHz Core Duo. ManyFaces2
will be running on one core of a 2.0 GHz Core Duo.
Regards,
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL
It's a mix. It uses all of Many Faces go knowledge, combined with a UCT
search. The UCT search is much stronger than the alpha-beta search I had
before.
On the 9x9 cgos, its been playing as tryinguct.
Regards,
Davdi
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
-David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Thanks! I just registered. Who else is going?
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rémi Coulom
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:09 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: [computer-go] Computer Olympiad registration reminder: 11
I would second the idea of a full double round robin. This makes scheduling
much easier. There is no need for fixed round start times. In a swiss
tournament you have to wait for everyone to finish, then figure the new
pairings. A round robin can get many more rounds in the same time.
David
Championship. Last
year 4 programs participated. Typically 5 to 7 programs compete.
ENTERING THE CONTEST:
You must register for the US Go Congress to enter the Computer Go
Competition.
Please contact David Fotland as soon
It seems to be down for a few days now.
David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Thanks. Can you tell us how many CPUs were used?
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Olivier Teytaud
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:16 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] troisgro on CGOS?
Troisgro has
So I'm curious then. With simple UCT (no rave, no priors, no progressive
widening), many people said the best constant was about 0.45. What are the
new concepts that let you avoid the constant?
Is it RAVE, because the information gathered during the search lets you
focus the search accurately
My program found another odd alternative.
On 118, rather than make the seki at b1, black can play
G8, b2, g7, f7, g9, f9, h7. It looks like this makes the upper right a
semeai with a ko, and black has a ko threat at b1, and white has no ko
threats. For example, continue with j7, j8, h9, j6,
What level for gnugo 3.7.10?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Magnus Persson
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 8:28 AM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: [computer-go] Greedy search vs UCT
I have checked if there is
programs
David Fotland wrote:
I didn't see this:
148: D1 also wins?
You are right. Thanks for correction.
Many Faces played D1, so change it to 38 correct.
Did you use the fixed version?
I corrected #148 as follows. Is it still wrong?
loadsgf sgf/mc148.sgf
148 reg_genmove black
Interesting. On your old version Many Faces played a3, and for your new
one, it plays a2 :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yamato
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:34 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Test
: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:21 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Test position set for MC programs
David Fotland wrote:
I didn't see this:
148: D1 also wins?
You are right. Thanks for correction.
Many Faces played D1, so change it to 38 correct.
Did you use the fixed version
Traditional Many Faces (my current experimental version) gets 37 right. I
gave it about 10 seconds on each problem.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yamato
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:42 PM
To: computer-go
I didnt see this:
148: D1 also wins?
You are right. Thanks for correction.
Many Faces played D1, so change it to 38 correct.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunnar Farnebäck
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:20
Does Linux have a decent development environment yet? After using Visual
studio, it would be a horrible loss of productivity to go back to
vi/make/gdb. Of course the linux command line tools are great when you want
them, but they are available on Windows through cygwin, so by developing on
I just looked at this position and it looks like a win for black in the
first position. Many Faces evaluates it as a win for black, and plays c1 to
save the lower left black group with almost no thinking time.
Mogo is correct because the lower left black group is not dead.
David
-Original
: [computer-go] Life and Death
David Fotland wrote:
I just looked at this position and it looks like a win for black in
the
first position. Many Faces evaluates it as a win for black, and
plays c1 to
save the lower left black group with almost no thinking time.
Mogo is correct because
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Petr Baudis
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:56 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Ing Challenge
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 08:50:28PM -0700, David Fotland wrote:
You are right.
Well, I did
This is not true. The Ing prize was for winning a best of 7 match against a
top professional without handicap.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Birk
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:32 AM
To: computer-go
The lower level prizes were given for games against Insei, but the top prize
was for play against t top professional.
http://www.smart-games.com/worldcompgo.html
I can't find any official data on-line, but the information in the page
above was copied from the paper rules at the competition.
You are right.
Well, I did compete for this prize about 15 times, so I hope so :)
David
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
19x19. 9x9 is not go :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Doshay
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:10 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Computer Go tournament at US Go Congress
both, but with 19
The last few tournaments I ran we just had everyone bring their own
hardware. Most people brought laptops, but some people who drove brought
larger machines.
Then all you need is the congress to allocate you a room for a few days. I
used to run it on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday since Wednesday
If there is an illegal ko point on the board Many Faces includes ko threats
in move generation, and it will play a ko threat if it is the best move
found. So there is no special heuristic for ko other than generating more
possible moves.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
I don't like using the words good and bad when describing the
quality of the moves because I try to use terminology that's more
descriptive (although I fail miserably many times.)In a lost
position how do you distinguish one move from another when they all
lose? It sounds funny to
If Don's data shows that after E5 C5, white will win, then if mogo is good
enough, it will see that it can't win, so it will play it's second move to
create complications, which C6 does. A stronger move may just lead to a
certain, small, loss.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
This really interesting. The strongest Mogo no longer uses UCT at all.
It's tuned instead to do very deep and narrow searches. I've seen that
other programs that use UCT are using very small C values to make uct also
do very narrow searches.
The strong programs also have very smart playouts.
Why are m and n different? Isn't every playout used both to update the UCT
win rate and the RAVE values for the same nodes? Won't the number of UCT
simulations and the number of RAVE simulations be the same?
Davdi
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
Hi Mark,
You should run a lot more test games. The 95% confidence interval on the
result is at least sqrt(1/num_games), so you need 400 or more games to know
the win rate within 5%. I've seen many anomalous win rates when I used to
test with 20 games. Now I use 200 games minimum, and I try
questions
On Feb 5, 2008 2:08 PM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It think many programs run several simulations through a node before
allocating the children. I can see how this saves memory, but then how do
you save the RAVE information from the early simulations?
For RAVE, after
I'm only 3 dan but I wouldn't mind taking a look. I suspect that there
might be some systematic issue causing the rolloff at high levels.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008
UCT with light playouts that just avoid filling eyes is scalable, but much
weaker than the strongest programs at 19x19 go.
The strong programs have incorporated significant go knowledge, to direct
the search to promising lines (usually local), to order moves to try, and to
prune unpromising moves
This implies that the top UCT programs are still over 1000 ELO points from
the top human amateurs.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:32 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: [computer-go] Go rating math information
There were some
Of David Fotland
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:48 AM
To: 'computer-go'
Subject: [computer-go] Go knowledge and UCT
UCT with light playouts that just avoid filling eyes is scalable, but
much
weaker than the strongest programs at 19x19 go.
The strong programs have incorporated significant
Since you hijacked my thread, I'm changing the title and injecting some data
:)
I tried to be very clear that I didn't want that thread to become another
scalability flame fest.
Here is a high level mogo game, level 15 vs level 16, that hinges on a life
and death problem that mogo gets wrong
I believe you COULD improve as fast as that young guy you are talking
about, but you would need to do serious study. Not read some books
while watching television, but putting yourself in a quiet room and
being totally focused.A 3 dan teacher would help enormously.
Agreed. It
Congratulations! I'm really impressed with how fast the AyaMC improved.
Regards,
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiroshi Yamashita
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:12 AM
To: computer-go
Subject:
I share this opinion. 9x9 was a good simple test to get things started, but
go is a 19x19 game. 9x9 has limited interest. An analogy for chess
programmers would be if a group of people worked on programs to solve rook
and pawn endgames. This kind of chess endgame is a good test to try out
Of course everyone will see this differently. For me the fundamental
difference between 9x9 and 19x19 is obvious. People play 19x19 seriously
and have for at least 2000 years. A commercial program has to play 19x19
well, and has to play by Japanese rules. It has to be enjoyable to play
This is an odd idea. When computers started beating people in chess, humans
did not abandon the game and change to some other similar game. Why do you
think go players would stop playing go when computers get strong?
David
In the future, when humans are consistently defeated by computers on
players do it
whenever they can to make the game more difficult.
David
Please don't say the style is to find an unsound move that
is
difficult to defend, that's not what it's trying to do, it's just
trying to find a move that it is IMPOSSIBLE to defend, and if it
- Don
David
Since the komi contains a half point, there should be almost no ties, and
between two perfect players, one color will always win by half a point.
In your scalability study, as the number of playouts goes up, is there a
bias toward one color winning more than half the games?
If so, it would show
I can see old cross tables of established program. I can't get a cross
table for new programs. I can't get games.
The new experimental Many Faces seems strong against traditional programs
and weak against MC programs, but I can't tell for sure.
David
-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] How to get more participation in 19x19 CGOS?
As suggested by David Fotland I made a simple referee type of setup
so that I can have two engines play each other continuously. I got it
working with GnuGo but with MoGo I get an Access denied message
when I try
If a point is illegal for black, are you saying that black can never
play at that point, or are you saying white can never play there?
Or
are you saying neither side can?
Yep currently neither side can anymore use that point.
This is a mistake. There are often moves that are illegal
on the 19x19 server so that we would have some
weaker players.Odie should be quite weak and I can also put up even
weaker versions.
- Don
David Fotland wrote:
I tested the three versions only against each other, and tuned them
by
removing go knowledge. I didn�t spend much time
I like 15 minutes on 19x19. The scalable programs can test at any time
limit, so they should prefer shorter times, to get ratings sooner. But we
also want to test against the strong traditional programs, and in
particular, gnugo level 10 is the anchor. Gnugo level 10 needs up to 10
minutes, and
to insure implicit
obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]
- Original Message
From: David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 3:00:44 PM
Subject
Thanks. I just restarted the five Many Faces versions. The slowest is Many
Faces version 11 at its highest level, which uses less than 10 minutes per
game.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Olivier Teytaud
Sent: Tuesday,
To get many faces 11 up, I had to change it so it would remove all dead
stones before passing. I wrote a gtp wrapper for its engine to communicate
with the cgos client. I can give you the source for the wrapper if you like
(in C++).
I have a windows tcl client that works that I got from Don a
I think there are two reasons there are not more programs on 19x19 CGOS:
1) The anchor, Gnugo, is quite strong, Many Faces 12 is stronger, and
CrazyStone is much stronger. Since the programs playing are so strong, it
is demoralizing for a new program to lose so often. Without weaker
Then 15 minutes should be good. We want the anchor to play at the same
strength as before.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alain Baeckeroot
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:40 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re:
.
- Don
David Fotland wrote:
I think there are two reasons there are not more programs on 19x19
CGOS:
1) The anchor, Gnugo, is quite strong, Many Faces 12 is stronger, and
CrazyStone is much stronger. Since the programs playing are so
strong, it
is demoralizing for a new program
we should consider scheduling games for the available
engines at every 10 minutes while still leave the time limits for each game at
30 minutes?
On Jan 8, 2008 4:06 PM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then 15 minutes should be good. We want the anchor to play at the same
strength
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
The styles of CS (CS-9-17-10k-1CPU), MFGO (mfgo12exp-15), and GNUGO
(gnugo3.7.10_10) are different, and it's generating some odd results.
Many Faces beats GnuGo 70%. There are not many games, but this is
consistent with over 100 test games I've run.
CS beats GnuGo 55%. Over 100 games played.
CS
Hi Don,
I never heard of this technique before. Are there any more you can share?
ManyFaces12 uses:
-Iterative deepening, with hash table
-Zero-window search (beta is alpha+1, and research when fail high)
-Null move (reduce depth by one, only try null when beta is not infinite,
only one null
these various moves is usually only a few points.
David Fotland wrote:
Hi Don,
I never heard of this technique before. Are there any more you can share?
Since you are using hash tables, I assume you are aware of ETC
(Enhanced Transposition Cutoffs.) ?
For anyone unaware - it works like
I only use 2 random numbers per point, one for black and one for white. I
xor another random number indicating the side to move.
David
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Álvaro Begué
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 4:15 AM
To: computer-go
Subject:
Of Chris Fant
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 7:23 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MC-UCT and tactical information
On Dec 14, 2007 2:29 PM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many Faces does life and death search at the root before the main
search.
It typically allocates
When MF evaluates a position it does local tactical search to see if blocks
of stones can be captured. It does this for every block with 3 or fewer
liberties, and for points at the diagonals of eyes, and to see if
connections are solid by trying to cut and doing a search to see if the
cutting
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've done some dabbling (thought experiments) with how I'd like to cache
search results and I'm not yet happy with any of them. Not taking into
account miai and such logic could lead to excessive storage bloat. I'd
love to enter a discussion talking
Many Faces does on-line learning of Fuseki, Joseki, and half-board patterns.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunnar Farnebäck
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:28 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Hall
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason House
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:50 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Non-global UCT
On Dec 12, 2007 10:19 PM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many Faces' life and death search is best first
Many faces still finds the correct move on the first trial, but now it takes
74 nodes to prove the first move works, rather than one node.
It looks at a total of 114 nodes to prove that no other move works.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL
It looks like CGOS 19x19 is down again.
-David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:47 AM
To: Don Dailey
Cc: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the
Isn't Greenpeep an alpha-beta searcher, not UCT/MC?
Since Go ranks are based an handicap stones, and 100 ELO points implies a
particular winning percentage, it would be an unlikely coincidence if 1 rank
is 100 ELO points. Any web site that claims this must be wrong :) and
should have little
I think Martin Mueller published an improvement to benson's algorithm that
is also proved correct.
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Fan
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:36 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MC-UCT and tactical
This is awful for such a simple problem. Many Faces' static evaluation
function sees that the white group is unsettled, and
the life/death search finds the B2 killing move in one node (since after B2
the group is dead with no further search, and the move generator returns B2
as the first
Many Faces' life and death search is best first and probability based, but I
don't use UCT to select moves. I select the move that has the highest
probability of changing the value of the root (from success to fail or vice
versa). I don't use MC to evaluate the endpoints. I look forward down
I think AGA and KGS are pretty close. AGA is a real rating system in that
ratings are earned in sanctioned tournaments so they are not disrupted by
casual games. http://www.usgo.org/ratings/default.html
European ratings (also from tournaments) are perhaps 2 stones tougher. Many
think they
It looks like the server is down again. It's too bad since there were so
many strong programs connected.
I hope it comes back up soon.
David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
301 - 400 of 465 matches
Mail list logo
