answers.
- Don
Cheers,
David
On 12, Oct 2006, at 11:38 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
1 canonical position per 16
equivalent states. The actual number is less than 16.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 20:33 +, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
The actual number of states that represent legal go position is
smaller than that. Even more, I think there are legal positions that
can be reached only by passing - these could also be skipped in a
database, I think.
I don't see how I
There is another technique that may be more effective that the one I
have been considering for building a hybrid search/database solver.
Suppose we used the same basic idea of building a function that can be
given the veto by a bloom filter, but the function in question returns
a best MOVE
On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 12:40 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Another question is how many illegal board configurations are
there ...
by assigning each point on the board a random state of
(white,black,empty)
That does not represent real game positions. All positions have about
7x7x2/3 = 33
When I have some free time and if Don is interested, I may run some
simulations for the method I proposed and post some results. Don,
please let me know whether your mind is made up already.
I am pretty sure I will stick with my original idea now of just choosing
the best of N random
I have a temporary server up for 7x7 CGOS thanks to Thomas Wolf who
procured a machine for me to use.
The following URL gives the status of the games:
http://139.57.131.70:8015/7x7.html
And you must fix up the client program to point to the correct server.
A client that is ready to go is
In Game 334564, it's also not a server error - but it's an amazing
superko.
If 101. B g5 were allowed, then it would exactly match the position
after 71. B e6.
After 71. B e6 was played a huge black group was captured, then a huge
white group was captured and yet history repeated itself.
You
There is no bug, the server was apparently rebooted last night.
It's up and running now.
- Don
On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 12:14 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have failed connecting a bot to cgos. The error message is:
server startup return code: 1 msg: couldn't open socket:
When someone mentioned a position where a pass-alive group should be
sacrificed - I wondered if it was also due to PSK issues.
I want to clarify something I said about PSK. I don't think the rule is
wrong in any sense - after all you can make up any rules you want as
long as they are internally
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 16:01 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
On 23-okt-06, at 14:23, Don Dailey wrote:
Then all the nonsense goes away. It then comes down to each player
having his fate in his own hands.If you want to win, you will
avoid
cycles,
That's a rather bizarre
:
On 10/23/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not very good at GO, but I would assume that it would change the
game some. But it would be a change that was adjusted to. Knowing how
to avoid these situations would be part of a good players strategy.
Some is an understatement
I think it's all in the presentation. Even if they are not even
beginners, with skill you can help them appreciate how some basic
concepts are difficult for a computer.
For instance, I think that you can teach the principle of 2 eyes with a
very simple example perhaps involving just 1 point
Sylvain,
The improvement over a given opponent should be measured by ELO points,
not win percentage unless you do the extra math. I cannot quite tell if
you were considering that or not - if so then ignore this. Going from
50% wins to 60% with is a modest improvement, but going from 80% to 90%
Richard,
The key word is not infinite, it's the word if
The statement was IF we had an infinite computer
It doesn't matter one bit whether such a device is possible - it's a
perfectly valid thought device for thought experiments.It's easy
to imagine what we would do with such a
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 13:38 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
on a practical note, i think that MC is a great
idea for 9x9, and might even be a great idea as
a subset of a larger piece of code that employs
human knowledge, but that MC will never beat a
decent human at 19x19. the time/space
Yes, I agree with the point you are making. Random play is a relatively
good evaluator, but it is not a great evaluator. And it's very weak at
tactics. Letting it do a lot of simulations does not cause it converge
to the correct value.
But the current breed of MC computer players do not have
A good point to consider - is God actively trying to confuse his
opponent and complicate things, or is he simply playing objectively best
moves?
- Don
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 07:39 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
wow. i thought that there were at least two
stones worth of slack in the opening,
I've often wondered how I would program a computer to play a game, chess
or go,
if I had perfect information about the game.How do you make it more
difficult
to win against a fallible opponent?
I assume that in many positions there are more than 1 maximizing move.
I would of
course restrict
A good devil tries to win by MORE than he deserves and will
try to win in a losing position.
I have heard this terminology before and my understanding was
that a devil still plays a perfect game, he just tries to be
deceptive about it.
I don't see any point in not playing perfect if you can
The thing about java is that it seems to be a big memory pig.
I can't have multiple java processes running without suddenly
getting a lot of memory thrashing.
If I do things in C, everything screams.I always figured
this is a problem with java that will be solved - but to this
day it
Hi Jim,
I feel similarly to you.
I have to take exception to what someone posted earlier - Java keeps
getting presented as some kind of high level language than enables a
natural expression of ideas. This is total garbage. Java is a low
level language and very much a C dialect. I don't
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 21:26 +0100, Chrilly wrote:
I believe that MC will be the only way to write a GO program in the
near future leaving the other stuff in the dust (like Mogo has with 9x9
Monte Carlo Go.)This happened in computer chess several times,
someone came up with some
No, you can't test it that way. The thing with monte carlo is the
discovery and then very rapid progress of it. Even 2 years ago they
were not very good compared to what they are now.I haven't seen that
in
My statement was about a way forward - I'm not saying they are currently
much
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 18:40 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
How does monte carlo go do with fights that are trivial to evaluate, but
hard to search?
It's easy to construct problems that any program cannot handle including
yours.
You have to understand that Monte Carlo is not great at tactics,
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 08:39 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
What's included in an evaluation? Is each evaluation one random game, or a
set of random games that gives good enough statistics about the value of a
position?
When you say random it conjures up images of aimless wandering - but
the monte
Hi David,
Since I made my last post to you, several people have responded. They
have made my point and I agree with your point.
It's foolish not to take advantage of domain specific information and
nothing prevents a monte carlo program from doing that as you can see.
Having said that, I
Since we have been talking about programming language recently, I was
curious as to whether anyone on this group has experimented with the
digital mars D programming language?
From the hype on the web page, it looks an extremely capable programming
language that is supposed to be fast native code
be grateful to see direct performance comparison on MC Go program
(or on anything else)
http://www.agner.org/
BTW
Does anybody know what is the performance of the native compiled C# ?
Best Regards,
Lukasz
On 12/4/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since we have been talking
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 12:15 -0800, Dave Dyer wrote:
Guys, keep your eyes on the prize. If your only problem
is that you need to double your speed, all you have to do
is wait 1.5 years.
All this talk of optimizing speed by tweaking language xx to be
more like assembly language (or C) is
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 20:40 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 09:51 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
I'll bet Mogo would give a dan level player fits at
9x9 if 1 week of
thinking time per move could be compressed enough to
play a 30 minute
game.
you could
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 21:15 +0100, John Tromp wrote:
On 12/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How long would it take Mogo to fill up 16GB of memory on a
quad core
opteron machine?
It depends on the speed of your opteron :).
Nick,
I would love to see such a tournament, but the UCT programs could not
take full advantage of the extra time. As you see, we run out of
memory after a minute or two!
- Don
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 20:48 +, Nick Wedd wrote:
Jason:
Thank you for pointing out these errors. I have
Sylvain,
You can extend this pretty easily by doing 2 or more simulations at a
time.
The trade-off is very good for doing this although not 100%.I HAVE
to do this for Lazarus because I have very little memory in my machine.
I believe I'm doing 8 simulations at a time in order to use about
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 00:04 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So that I can follow this discussion, how would be the kgs level of
this player (it is the only level I have access to when looking at the
results of game)?
Wouldn't it be 1 dan on KGS?
I don't know because some seem to say
intersection in the vector starting
from the place I finished last time.
I hope this is clear now. If not, just ask :)
Lukasz Lew
On 12/6/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 18:32 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
I deal with eyes by randomizing list of empty
found a
previous bug.)
So it appears that D is perfectly usable as a very fast compiled
programming language, at least as compared to gcc with all the
optimizations I know to do.
- Don
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 12:28 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
In fact, I just wrapped this up into my Mersenne
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 10:24 -0800, Peter Drake wrote:
Got it -- now I'm getting just under 10,000 games per second! Whee!
Hold on, I thought the non-threaded version was doing 5,000? What
exactly did you change? Or are you just using 2 processors more
efficiently to get 10,000 games?
- Don
I'm pretty sure the time of this function is dominated by the call to
rand(), but it never occurred to do a table lookup for the mask,
interesting idea.
- Don
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 22:36 +0100, Antoine de Maricourt wrote:
If this randint routine is critical, you can save some calls to rand()
By the way,
I'm amazed that the code for playing random games is fast enough that
getting random numbers is actually a bottleneck and it's worthy of a
discussion on optimization.
One of the fastest chess programs a few years ago in terms of nodes per
second was Fritz. It heavily used a common
trying to encourage the development of new
techniques and idea and particularly Monte Carlo although all programs
are welcome.
So I'm leaning towards 30 minute games at 19x19 but I'm still listening
to feedback.
- Don
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 08:05 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
You anticipated my
What happens in March?
Or are you suggesting that we do 13x13 until March?
- Don
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 17:54 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
I vote for 13x13 with 15 minutes.
19x19 , 30 minutes , in march.
Lukasz Lew
On 12/12/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a few proposals
of Wine(a
free implementation of Windows on Unix) without noticeable performance loss.
Best regards!
- Original Message -
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:47 AM
Subject: [computer-go] Anchor Player
O
X group have 4 pseudo liberties.
If You merge two groups just add pseudo liberties.
If PL = 0 then group should be removed.
This is simple and sufficient :)
Lukasz
On 12/11/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 18:22 +0100
On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:47 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
On 12/16/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another report on D programming. It appears that D programs are about
1.5X slower in general - at least for what I'm doing.
At one point I reported about 7% slower
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 16:28 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
I should be able to get close to
25,000 games per
second if
I get the 1.5 X improvement going to C. This is
only about 3K of code
that will
have to be written in C, where much of the code is
identical to C
anyway.
is
Here is a config file that MAY work for the tournament - at
least I don't get obvious errors
-[ snip ]-
engine=/home/drd/Games/KGS/botexp
verbose=f
server.host=goserver.gokgs.com
server.port=2379
name=botnoid
password=xx
room=Computer Go
mode=tournament
talk=I
William,
One question -
My opponent in the first round somehow got disconnected. A few
minutes later
botnoid was kicked from the game.
What would happen if my opponent came back? Would botnoid
automatically
rejoin the game or would it now be botnoid that would lose on time?
There
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 02:21 -0500, House, Jason J. wrote:
On the down side, I noticed a significant lack of documentation and
difficult to find get it at my fingertips.
Yes, I had this problem too - you do have to do a lot of digging to
figure
out some things.
I actually had quite a bit of
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 15:33 +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Hi Don,
On 12/22/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's easy to adapt monte carlo programs to have the goal of trying to
win as much space or territory as possible but many of us have studied
this as see that it seriously
Hi Steve,
What you fail to take into considerations is that a monte/carlo
player may ruin it's chances before the weaker player has a
chance to play a bad move. The monte carlo player sees all
moves as losing and will play almost randomly.
In botnoids game against mogo, once mogo achieved
a
to the score?
- Don
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 17:25 +0100, Rémi Coulom wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
Hi Steve,
What you fail to take into considerations is that a monte/carlo
player may ruin it's chances before the weaker player has a
chance to play a bad move. The monte carlo player sees
, if at all?
Check http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#comp if you don't know
what I'm talking about..
//Christian
On 12/22/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok,
Well I'm inclined to go with the majority which seems to have turned
around
from the last time I polled.
Now
.
I don't plan to add compensation for the handicap stones.
- Don
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 16:01 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
I'm glad you bring it up.
From the same site, it appears there is no standard way of handling
this.
I will look to see what Tromp/Taylor says if anything.
It would
that do_something() might have changed
the value in the array (e.g. from 'a' to 'b'). So, the compiler
*must* reload the value from the array again -- another memory
reference.
Edmund.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: 19
Based on some research I've done, it does make some sense to give some
compensation for handicap stones, because it makes it match Japanese
and without it, the kyu system is not balanced. I have doubts that
it's
perfectly balanced anyway, but that's a different subject.
So I think we will
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 20:20 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
On 12/23/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on some research I've done, it does make some sense to give some
compensation for handicap stones, because it makes it match Japanese
and without it, the kyu system is not balanced
to fake handicap - there is already GTP command in place
for that.
Will have to slightly extend the CGOS client to handle it though.
Will make a web page that clearly explains how everything works.
- Don
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 22:37 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi Hideki,
I think what I will do is use ELO and a simple formula for
determining handicap. The formula will impose a slight
curve on the value of a handicap stone, it will slightly
increase with each ELO point. In other words a stronger
player will benefit more from having an extra stone and
I was always taught in Chess to play the board, not the player.
But in principle this is wrong if your goal is to increase your
chances of winning the game.
The problem with playing your opponent is that if you don't know
the proper technique for doing this, it will distract you from
the
, or the bottom players need to be closer in rating than
100
points.
- Don
On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 20:23 +0100, Andrés Domínguez wrote:
2006/12/25, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 13:54 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
There is no fixed relationship between ELO
Hi Sylvain,
Do you think it would be useful to add 1/2 second for CGOS games?
I have long considered doing that. I would still consider it fixed
time games - I would just silently add 1/2 second to the clock for
each move as a kind of internal benefit of the doubt factor - it's
clear that some
It turns out that I did not turn off all of the stuff
that strengthened the random player - so hopefully I
have much weaker players now.
(There was a bug that made the program too strong :-)
- Don
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 21:34 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
I'm having an interesting problem - my hope
Can you send me an attachment with the 19x19 data in a text
file?
I will try a version for the 19x19 games and see what happens.
- Don
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 23:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll post a 19x19 version if anyone is interested, but the lines will
wrap around...
Thanks Dave,
- Don
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 23:50 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File attached. And also inline below Dave Hillis antminder on KGS
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
There are 3 gtp commands for handling this:
fixed_handicap
place_free_handicap
set_free_handicap
You are arguing that fixed_handicap, even though it's quite
explicit, is the wrong one to use in this situation?
set_free_handicap would also work - the server just specifies
the points and
this discussion before, but there appears to be no
concise way to state the rules with the myriads of variations they
entail.
- Don
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 01:57 +0100, John Tromp wrote:
On 12/28/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to be precise: KGS does option 2 if you select
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 15:28 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
The handicaps are set up in a way that white passes between Black's
moves.
Ie. he gives one point to the black N-1 times.
This isn't elegant. The stones work out nicely as you say, but after
a
pass move the opponent has a right to pass
I'm considering this proposal to rate handicaps separately, still
haven't decided but it's appealing.
My plan was to simply use the same scheduling algorithm I currently
use. I would take the weaker base player and see if handicap
versions of himself more closely matches the ELO rating needed to
I agree with you. Weston's post convinced me that the program should
know
in advance what the handicap is to be and thus sending consecutive
genmove
commands is not really correct technically speaking.
I don't like implied compensation, but apparently it is popular and KGS
does it. However,
On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 14:32 +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Lukasz Lew wrote:
The unification needs that *pass* costs one point.
And this is only modification needed.
Passing when a game is finished is the only
Kami No Itte move we, the mortals, can play.
Probably, all our other moves
Are we to assume that Size is starting to get good at 9x9 and can beat
Gnugo consistently?
- Don
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 13:14 +0100, Chrilly wrote:
For testing Suzie on 9x9 we (Peter Woitke and Chrilly) use Gnu-Go
Level
16.
Is there something stronger around /available?
Y
Yes, where is Suzie?
Seriously, CGOS tries to be programmer friendly and will be improved
to be more so.
Unfortunately you will not always get a tough opponent, but
this is impossible with an open server. However CGOS tries
hard to keep the opponents paired up fairly closely and you will
Hi Chrilly,
I find it pretty amazing that even a little money will inspire people
to play a computer who wouldn't otherwise.
Many years ago my old chess programs were welcome at tournaments, but
as soon as players started losing, the program wore out it's welcome!
The change was like night and
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 19:06 +0100, Urban Hafner wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hej,
I figured I'd ask my question about CGOS here as the documentation is
said to be out of date. My question is: Does CGOS do the time
handling like KGS, i.e. send a time_left
on
the time the server thinks you spent.
- Don
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 13:18 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
In the near future I'm going to silently add in a fudge factor to
each move. It's been brought to my attention that even if a
program plays instantly, it will lose a significant amount of
time
I seem to remember someone on this group a couple of years ago or so
saying that there won't be a 1 Dan 9x9 player anytime soon. I don't
remember the exact quote or who said it. I'm looking through the
archives but I can't find it. I would not name the person even when
I do, but it gives me
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:10 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious about the full width depth and the principal variation
depth to
compare UCT wilth alpha-beta.
The comparison is not so easy to do I think, because using MC as an
evaluation
function for alpha beta, you have to do
Hi Jacques,
I think Chinese should be universally adapted, but before you flame
me I'll tell you why.
I know of players who thought Go might be an interesting game, but
gave up quickly when they realized they could never play by Japanese
rules.
Even though they eventually could have learned
This is exactly how Cilkchess used to compete. Your ran a gui locally
on
your laptop which connected to the program (running in a different part
of
the world) via stdin and stdout - via an ssh connection.
That's what I've always loved about unix - everything is a nice
abstraction.
You normally
. It is required that all programs agree when scoring
games. At least: *when* nothing more can be won and what is *alive*
and what is not at that moment.
and
On 1, Jan 2007, at 1:08 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
By far, Chinese is more intuitive and natural. Japanese rules are
based on some very non
.
I think our only real disagreement is when and where we raise
the bar. I think we could do it very soon in public tournaments.
Cheers,
David
On 3, Jan 2007, at 1:55 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I think this all comes down to pretty much one concept - Chinese
is more forgiving
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 08:01 +, Tom Cooper wrote:
At 23:17 03/01/2007, Don wrote:
David,
I thought of another way to put it which I think, in a way,
defines the difference in the rule-sets.
You are playing a game, and you think the opponent group
is dead. But you are not 100
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:53 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed
to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not
require answer, the more skilled player i.e
seems like a tedious unimportant
exercise that at best will give you a stone or two if you have
a reasonable program.
- Don
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 16:46 -0500, Chris Fant wrote:
Kinda like how the discussion is on this mundane stuff instead of the
interesting stuff?
On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL
stuff?
On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:16 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned
below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly.
I hope the programming effort isn't spend
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 23:28 +0100, Erik van der Werf wrote:
Chinese scoring != Chinese rules
Japanese scoring != Japanese rules
So you can play with Chinese rules, but score
the Japanese way?
Please explain the difference so that I can use the
correct terminology.
- Don
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 22:04 -0800, Peter Drake wrote:
How much time should a program spend on each move?
If my program has t milliseconds left to use in a game, and there are
an estimated m moves left on the board (e.g., this many vacant
spaces), one reasonable choice is t / m.
Ok, since you broke the truce so will I :-)
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:55 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
I guess we will just have to leave it as a disagreement about what
is important and what is mundane. I do not find the question of
correct endgame reading to be mundane.
What does this have to
My program does this to an extent - it's time control is based on an
aggressive percentage of the remaining time but it is modified by
other factors.
It has the interesting characteristic that it can get into time
trouble! I think a really good time control must get into trouble
once in a
Let me get this straight. I think you are saying that IdiotBot actually
knew the stones were dead and correctly said so. But HouseBot didn't
speak up for itself nor did it bother to capture the dead stones and
the only way for the server to resolve this is to assume everything is
alive.
I
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 17:43 +, Nick Wedd wrote:
I like the protocol, because you don't have to implement it,
but if you don't you should clean up opponents dead stones before
passing.
I like it too. But bots which fail to support it will continue to
lose
games as a consequence.
But
What I meant to say is that it's ok to NOT support the protocol and
you would NEVER lose a game you should have won AS LONG AS your program
makes sure to eat all the opponents dead groups before passing.
Am I correct in this understanding?
- Don
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 12:59 -0500, Don Dailey
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 09:03 +0100, Edward de Grijs wrote:
I do not want to start the rules/scoring discussion again, but I want
to know if the kgs-genmove_cleanup command which results in
playing inside your own territory, can be used with Japanese
rules/scoring. It seems to me that this
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 16:31 +0100, Benjamin Teuber wrote:
I just lost my first game against MoGo on KGS, 9x9, 0.5 komi, I was white.
Impressing!
But as a human, you don't like the useless endgame-moves MC-programs
play against you when they know they win anyways.
In order to make these
But is there other conditions? Could I pass really early and
trick Mango into passing if I wanted to?
A very simple approach works like this:
1. When winning very convincingly in Chinese, play quickly.
2. When losing convincingly, resign.
Your opponent, when losing has 2 options.
Hi Sylvain,
I like the way you think - this reflects my view and I posted something
similar before I read your mail.
- Don
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 17:20 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
Hello,
But as a human, you don't like the useless endgame-moves
MC-programs
play
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 09:24 -0800, Ben Shoemaker wrote:
... Having the floating goal makes it win about 47%, so a
slight decrease in strength.. but I'm sure a bit of tweaking may
actually make it stronger. The best part is that it now wins by
51pts
and loses by 17pts on average.
It is
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 12:29 -0500, Chris Fant wrote:
Christian, can you close that 47% / 53% gap and still retain most of
the win by margin by saying that only moves which are less than (5.5
- someFudgeFactor) are inferior?
Or can you close the gap by delaying this algorithm until you get a
Just add a new child only when parent is visited more times than X.
I'm testing this very idea with UCT. I'm testing 3 versions right
now where X is different in each version. I'm testing 5, 10 and 100.
I've always used a higher value than 1 but never thoroughly checked
this out. In my
Chrilly,
The computer go guys don't think of performance as a function of time,
only as a kind of absolute, it plays good or it doesn't.
Us computer chess people are used to thinking of it as a function of
how fast the computer is and how much memory (along with how well the
code is written
1 - 100 of 1773 matches
Mail list logo
