On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 11:25 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
The idea is to try to guarantee that your programs internal
clock is a lower bound on the time actually used from CGOS
point of view.
Actually, I said that backwards. The idea is that if your program
thinks it used
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 14:22 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
I have been playing with pure MC players, thanks to Lukas Lew's library.
I noticed that they tend to play silly moves, like putting the opponent
into atari, even if the move is a self-atari as well. Any reasonable
player can see that
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 08:20 -0700, Markus Enzenberger wrote:
On Monday 19 February 2007, Chris Fant wrote:
Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
large board.
For ascetics, the eyes have been filled after both players passed.
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 12:27 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Wasn't
Anchorman some version of MC?
One other comment about AnchorMan - it's a tiny low resource
program. It's not very strong (1500 on CGOS) but it is a very
simple and fast program. It plays pretty close to full strength
in just
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:56 +0300, Dmitry Kamenetsky wrote:
Thank you for your answer. However, I am even more confused now. I
understand that - is for negamax, but I don't understand why it
became 1-. I am trying to implement your algorithm and I just want
to know what lines 7, 16 and 26
There is also the expression, He isn't playing with all his marbles!
I don't think the author did this by accident, instead I think he liked
the sound of it. It's common for writers to take liberties like this to
jazz up an article.
- Don
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 14:01 -0800, Thomas Johnson
I've been doing some interesting scalability studies with Lazarus.
On the big 19x19 boards, along with the help of others, we tested
versions of Lazarus against other versions of Lazarus at different
levels. We set up individual versions of Lazarus where the weakest
version was Lazarus doing
Hi Richard,
I'm very much interested in core 2 duo performance and would appreciate
hearing what others have experienced in this regard. I don't know what
OS you use, but here are my experiences so far with Linux:
I'm a little disappointed with the speed of a single threaded
application
on my
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 17:05 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
So, what should I be looking for in a
processor if I want to get the most out of my single threaded UCT
program?
The best way is to find a friend with exactly the processor you want
and try your program on it... The second best is see
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 09:02 -0800, Richard J. Lorentz wrote:
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6700 @ 2.66GHz
stepping: 6
cpu MHz : 2660.110
cache size : 4096 KB
is the fastest processor for MoGo I have access to. Each processor
(there are 2), is
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 18:50 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
I'm very much interested in core 2 duo performance and would
appreciate
hearing what others have experienced in this regard. I don't know
what
OS you use, but here are my experiences so far with Linux:
You seem to have exactly
to work in 64 bit mode, and still run 32 bit
OS, at least for the utilites that benefit from it (and there are some
that do.)I haven't sorted it all out yet.
- Don
-gg (Hideki)
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 18:50 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
I'm very much
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 18:31 +, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
Le jeudi 22 février 2007 17:00, Don Dailey a écrit :
It appears that at 9x9 Lazarus needs more play-outs to equalize with
gnugo. However, it also appears that at higher levels the superiority
is even greater than in the 7x7 games
Ok, so I will probably give it a chance if it's free. I'll let you
know
if anything interesting happens.
I really prefer to stay with GCC but if there is a big difference I will
use intel until GCC starts optimizing for core 2, assuming it's usable.
I'm not sure when this will happen, it
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 02:50 +0900, igo wrote:
My point is simple.
for example, [MoGo] can beat a 3d person at 9x9 now.
but the same person(3d) will beat [MoGo] at 13x13 easily at this
time.
Will you agree ?
when [MoGo] can beat the same person at 13x13,
then the same person will beat
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 11:11 +0900, igo wrote:
If computers ever become world champion strength at 19x19, there will
probably have been some simplification that makes this possbile, I
don't
see it being a (direct) result of faster computers or more processors.
So in this situation it
Heikki,
This is very similar to what AnchorMan on CGOS does. At the end of
each random simulation I keep the same statistcs on each point of
the board and I use it to improve the move selection algorithm. I
call this special board an ownership map for obvious reasons. I
just divide each value
]
To: computer go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:46:27 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Slightly improved MC algorithm
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have an older program (which I cannot find) that was quite
interesting, it evolved a playing strategy using
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 14:46 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have an older program (which I cannot find) that was quite
interesting, it evolved a playing strategy using PBIL,
What is PBIL?
(P)opulation (B)ased (I)ncremtal (L)earning. It related
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 09:01 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
2. I use a hybrid form of all-moves-as-first and others have
reported no improvement. The behavior I get is that it
plays much stronger at low simulations and in extensive
testing I could not find a high enough
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 10:22 +0200, Tapani Raiko wrote:
Ownership map is a good term!
Go81 (and Go169) also uses the ownership map (since 2002). In Palm
handhelds, I can afford to do just two playouts, so the ownership map is
much more informative than the first moves. I look for large
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 10:12 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:28:37AM +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
I have never really understood the idea in all-in-first.
Actually early in the game the order of random moves does not matter. The
Sequence AbCdE... have same result
Hi Łukasz,
Maybe something could be borrowed from UCI, the universal chess
interface. It is a really well designed protocol that serves
the same purpose as GTP does for go, but it's for chess.
It's about at the same point GTP is, most chess programs support
it and interfaces are available
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:31 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
I also have a strong feelings about variables.
I believe there should be standard GTP command, var seems to be a good name,
that would write list of variables (with types?)
var var_x would print value of var_x
var var_x value would set the
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 13:45 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
The contoller would send
commands such as continue_search which must return in a fraction of
second, possibly with a move.This would be truly awkward but
possible.
Of course, a good GO program doesn't have to STOP searching just
Łukasz,
Yes, I would like to see some of these problems solved.
As I mentioned, UCI doesn't have any of these issues.
After thinking about this, there is perhaps a backwards
compatible solution:
1. Don't change GTP, just add to it.
2. Have a command called asyncronous which tells the
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 10:39 -0700, Markus Enzenberger wrote:
These are different things and therefore you cannot really compare GTP
to UCI
or call UCI more advanced.
Yes I can. I have had a lot of experience coding up engines for both
protocols and I have no reservations about this, UCI is
I'm pretty sure I read that the MoGo team is shifting their efforts
towards 19x19 GO. There are lot's of possibilites for research,
but Mogo already does things to constrain the board on 19x19, they
are probably just refining this stuff.
- Don
On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 19:58 -0800, Peter Drake
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 10:10 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 04:10:16PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
And you CAN compare GTP directly to UCI because both are designed for
the same purpose and both are simple text based protocols and the
similarities are much greater than
believe in the future of MC even in 19x19.
Bye,
Sylvain
2007/3/5, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm pretty sure I read that the MoGo team is shifting their efforts
towards 19x19 GO. There are lot's of possibilites for research,
but Mogo already does things to constrain the board
I agree with you. My idea is to not have a specific aync
command, but to have anycronous versions of commands. The
engine is free to accept or reject them. Having an async
command doesn't do anything if you haven't implemented the
useful needed extensions.Of course it could change the
lost you here. Are you suggesting that we
can do all of this without any asyncronous commands?
- Don
--- Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
I like GTP and I champion it.However, there are
some weaknesses
and they are not easily fixed without a major
paridigm change
of new commands will be enough. (and
processing
them on realtime from another thread).
If the engine doesnt supports 'abort'
the controller after a couple of seconds will
receive
'move blah blah' 'command don't understood'.
--- Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió
return the programs
best guess at the moment, but it wouldn't be considered final until
genmove returns.
On 3/5/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, it's possible to do all of this with GTP as is and
the addition of a few commands that stay blocking, nothing
of simulations you do, even trivial errors
like incorrect auto-atari's cannot be solved because
it might statistically be the very best move against
random play.
- Don
--- Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Sylvain,
What you say is no surpise to me about the
constraints. I knew
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 20:00 -0600, Matt Gokey wrote:
I'm entering this discussion a bit late, but what about the following
idea?
Perhaps we could start from scratch and create the protocol we want
with
no compromises based perhaps on an async event message model - a
model
everyone
The server stayed up all night and is still running. I did not
do anything special and I still don't know what the problem is.
If anyone suspects their program tickled a bug in CGOS, please
let me know, so I can strengthen CGOS and know what to look for in
the future.
Meanwhile, I'm working on
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 12:01 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
Any possibility of running out of memory? Linux will kill processes
sometimes if there's not enough memory.
When I run top the memory percentage is less than 5%
- Don
___
computer-go
Should that be familar? I am not aware of it happening before.
- Don
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 13:51 -0700, Richard Lorentz wrote:
Did you see this? Sound familiar? :)
terry mcintyre wrote:
Any possibility of running out of memory? Linux will kill processes
sometimes if there's not
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 23:03 -0400, Chris Fant wrote:
I was able to replicate the success (and with more iterations,
failure) of the all-as-first heuristic. But I have not been able to
see an improvement when I prohibit multi-stone suicides (I always
prohibit single-stone suicides). Forgive
What does C# bring that Java doesn't? My understanding is that C#
is Microsofts way to try to supplant Java as a standard, not a clone
but extremely similar.
What advantages over Java? It is a higher level language?
- Don
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 07:04 -0700, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 19:38 -0400, Chris Fant wrote:
If you allow multi-stone suicide, it will probably avoid a test
that may be expensive in your program, and so it may turn out to
be a net improvement in strength per second - especially if your
testing proves that it doesn't hurt in any
Hi John,
The impressive numbers reported by Lukasz Lew is based on designing
the fastest possible randomly distributed play-out you can manage.
But when using heavy play-outs, things become more complicated
because the play-outs become far more expensive. Lazarus does
some of the sames things
a bit of speed and still come out ahead.
- Don
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 12:22 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Hi John,
The impressive numbers reported by Lukasz Lew is based on designing
the fastest possible randomly distributed play-out you can manage.
But when using heavy play-outs, things become
It's unbelievable how strong MoGo is playing.
I remember when CGOS first came up, I expected it to be a
few years before a program could achieve 2000.0 on the CGOS
scale. But I was quickly surpised when programs started
breaking over 1800.0.
But this is quite incredible. MoGo_G3.4 at
wrote:
Hello Don, Nick, Magnus,
I here answer the 3 previous emails.
2007/3/18, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Another possible candidate is Mogo, running at 3K play-outs, like the
version running on CGOS right now.
I thought about that, the good thing is the resources taken (between
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 19:09 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
Hi Don,
I think what you are looking isn't a strong Anchor player, but
strong players who are always available.
In some sense you are right. In fact, I was not talking about anchor
with fixed rating, but floating anchor, which
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 22:34 -0500, Nick Apperson wrote:
heavy playouts should yeild a lower number of moves because moves are
slightly more efficient bringing the end of the game sooner. I'm
actually surprised it isn't a larger difference.
I never tested it until now - but I expected it to
John,
Did that 107.3 number come from me? I seem to remember
that I used to get that - if I'm remembering correctly.
But I remember making a little change, that addressed
what appeared to be a minor implementation bug. One
of the speed enhancements is to put away moves you
already tried which
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 07:42 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote:
Hi, everyone. This is my first post to the list.
Beginning chess programmers have something called perft at their
disposal, which is just a count node of a search tree of fixed depth,
with no prunning whatsoever and no extensions. It's
Sensei and Wikipedia serve somewhat different purposes and I
believe they should both be kept up to date.
I don't believe the detail of Sensei's Library should be
covered by Wikipedia. If I first wanted to get acquainted
with some subject I might look it up in an encyclopedia to
get an
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 09:54 -0400, John Tromp wrote:
hi Don,
Are you trying to make a Monte Carlo program?
Guilty:-)
Since about a week and a half, me and my colleague Alvaro Begue are
working on a Go program, which (like many others) wil try to imitate
Mogo's success...
I expect your
of Lazarus.
html example attached.
- Don
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 13:53 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Hi Sylvain,
I think what you are looking isn't a strong Anchor player, but
strong players who are always available.
However, I do want to upgrade the Anchor player too, perhaps putting
up 2
approaching similar levels (without pondering.) Yes, all that
stuff helps.
- Don
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 15:10 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
2007/3/18, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not so sure we need to have a really strong Anchor. The Anchor's
role is to prevent
The new cgos has a slightly better look:
http://www.greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/CGOS/
The links to the crosstable not quite there yet, but the
crosstable looks like this:
http://www.greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/CGOS/cross/AnchorFat.html
I need volunteers for testing.
case.
- Don
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 09:30 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 05:46:12PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
The new cgos has a slightly better look:
Looks promising!
I need volunteers for testing. If you want to enter your bot on the
new server as a test, feel
send out a message when I am ready
to test again. I'm hoping this will be on Monday.
- Don
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 20:13 +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 05:46:12PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
I need volunteers for testing. If you want to enter your bot on the
new server
For example, something I suggested the last time I was on a computer
go
list, back in the 90's: Take an array of 7 64-bit integers...
I believe very similar techniques are pretty common - I don't know
how common but it's been used before.
I believe you might as well just use use
I have a prototype of the new CGOS server up and running.
Please help me test it. I have set up a 2 MINUTE SERVER, i.e.
2 minutes per side for the time control.
Grab the current client at:
http://www.greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/public/cgos3.tcl
and see the results at:
have tcl installed on
my machines, and the perl script for the old server seems to work
well.
Thanks,
Álvaro.
On 3/26/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a prototype of the new CGOS server up and running.
Please help me test it. I have set up a 2 MINUTE SERVER, i.e.
2
I have several binary clients for the prototype server that do
not require tcl to be installed.Several people have reported
issues with tcl versions and such.
These clients are just temporary but will work with the protoype
test 2 minute server.
Linux versions:
32 bit OS:
will eventually provide binary clients that will not
require tcl to be installed.
- Don
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 12:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
I have a prototype of the new CGOS server up and running.
Please help me test it. I have set up a 2 MINUTE SERVER, i.e.
2 minutes per side for the time
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 21:47 +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:10:05PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
I have a prototype of the new CGOS server up and running.
http://www.greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/CGOS
And report any problems or bugs to me.
I have
Would the author of MyCtest send me a private email? I can
help you get your client working. It's not working quite
correctly yet! I actually have some documenation on the
client protocol.
- Don
___
computer-go mailing list
I think it's fixed now. I was indeed leaving the trailing semi-colon.
Thanks for the bug report. Can you verify that it's fixed on your
browser?
- Don
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 21:47 +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:10:05PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
I have a prototype
The testing has uncovered a few bugs that have been fixed.
None of them crashed the server or caused a major problem.
However, someone is running a client that is reconnecting
pretty frequently - I suspect their engine has died. I think
I would prefer the behavior to be to kill the script
stderr to stdout.
On 3/26/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My people have asked about sending stderr to the display when
running the cgos tcl client. Several people on CGOS use the
perl client because of this.
I think it can be done by appending 2@ stdout to the
command line
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 12:39 +0200, Hellwig Geisse wrote:
Jacques,
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 11:03 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Could the source code of this client be open?
I just finished the translation of the old TCL script cgosGtp.tcl
to plain C (for those of us who don't want to run a
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 08:24 -0400, Jason House wrote:
On 3/27/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Jason House wrote:
I don't see any games that have an outcome other than
winning by points or
resignation. Any forfeits or
Friedenbach
On Mar 27, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
The 2 minute server is interesting, the short time control
has still allowed for very strong programs including Mogo.
I am considering to change the time control when I change
over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 11:47 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
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
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 23:10 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
Hi Don,
I am considering to change the time control when I change
over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems
more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play
quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game.
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 23:52 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
But what are real conditions? Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it
is standard for 19x19 or 9x9?
I meant for 9x9 and games against humans for example.
At any rate, I will probably go with
5 minutes unless I get a lot of protests,
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 15:41 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
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).
They are currently sorted by ELO rating
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 16:02 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
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.
of opponent are playing for free.
- Don
Dave Hillis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
I have
Ok, I just changed the time leeway factor to 1/4 second. It will
be interesting to see how/if this changes some of the times.
- Don
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:48 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 19:20 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The way the cross-tables are sorted
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote:
I don't like the idea of giving extra time every move. The effect is
very similar to adding a fixed amount of time, since go games have
fairly constant lengths. Lags are probably tiny these days for most
people anyway. And you do get an
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 19:36 -0700, David Doshay wrote:
Another thought would be to alternate longer and shorter periods
in your scheduling algorithm.
Do you mean play one time control, then on the next round play
a different time control?
- Don
___
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 12:25 +0200, Edward de Grijs wrote:
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am considering to change the time control when I change
over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems
more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play
quite strongly
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 will have to
read the standard to see if
That's awesome if you have a cgos client in C, I would be
happy to post the source code and/or binaries.
I warn you however, the protocol may change - I have not
finalized it. Although it's not likely anything major.
- Don
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 19:56 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Hellwig
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 13:44 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
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
I would like to thank everyone who helped with the testing
of CGOS. As a result I was able to shake out several
bugs, many of which you discovered for me.
I aslo recieved many useful suggestions about feature
improvements or additions - many of which I will
implement either right away or at
and are now in
this version of the server.
- Don
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 10:36 -0400, Jason House wrote:
What is your policy for receiving/handling feature requests? Is there
a tracker (e.g. sourceforge) or a wiki page (e.g. senseis)? Or do we
just e-mail you directly?
On 3/29/07, Don
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 14:29 -0400, John Tromp wrote:
On 3/29/07, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears to me that at least 91 is possible:
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xxx.xxx.
Nice! If you use O's instead
I think I may have sent that several months ago:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-01/msg0014148.html
- Don
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 14:55 -0400, Chris Fant wrote:
Can someone please re-send that list of fast/small random number
generators? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:08 -0700, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote:
What's a pseudo-liberty? And how can there be more of them than there
are empty intersections (81) on the board?
That's why they are pseudo - they may not be real :-)
Actually, a pseduo-liberty is an actual liberty, but it can
be
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 21:54 +0300, Urban Hafner wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 31, 2007, at 21:31 , Don Dailey wrote:
So I'm keeping a close eye on D - I expect to be able to switch
over to is soon once it becomes a little more competitive with C
the optimizations? Has Walter
made serious improvements over the last several versions
in terms of execution speed of the binaries?
- Don
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 20:43 -0400, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 16:09 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
I know that the author of D has not emphasized
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 15:45 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote:
3.)
I am considering postponing the April KGS bot tournament from Sunday
April 8th (Easter Sunday) to Sunday April 15th. Will this
inconvenience
anyone?
April 8th is probably better for me, but I would guess that
April 15th is the date
I now have a primitive but working prototype of a graphical game
viewer for CGOS. Although it's primitive, it's quite nice for
viewing games as they are being played.
Please download one for your platform by going the link and
finding it under the section getting started
into the
server that would fulfill this function. If there were an
odd number of players he would come alive to fill out the
pairings.
- Don
On 4/2/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I now have a primitive but working prototype of a graphical game
viewer for CGOS. Although it's primitive
I received a surprising number of responses to the new viewer
I posted and even fixed a bug based on your feedback.
I now have a client for MAC's, so there is something for
3 common platforms so far. If your platform isn't covered,
I can probably fix that too with a little help.
So right
This article didn't specify the boardsize. This has no
chance of being interesting unless it's played on a 9x9
board.
If it is on a 19x19 board, it's pretty much a silly exhibition
match that has no point.
If it's on a 9x9 board, it starts to be more interesting, but
assuming that is the
This report is much appreciated. So perhaps such a match is interesting
after all.
Presumably, 4 dan would be a close match with alternating colors?
I'm surprised you think 7.5 is too much. Does that imply that you
think 6.5 is not enough and the correct komi should be 7.0 ?
- Don
On Tue,
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 10:52 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
You should also know that we never claimed that MoGo plays 9x9 go
near the level of a professional go player, which is of course false,
and even if it was true should ask for many many experiments, and we
would have never say that.
It
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:48:05PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
cgos_name color name ; cgos_name white Lazarus
'name' is much used thing, and prone to misunderstandings. I would
prefer 'cgos_opponent' or even 'cgos_opponent_name' to make it
absolutely clear whom we talk about
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 09:17 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7.5 komi is for the 19x19 game (7.5/361). It may not be correct for
the 9x9 (7.5/81). From games played on CGOS what is the correct
komi?
It's my strong feeling that 7.5 is the right komi if you are to use
fractional komi to avoid
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 15:25 +0200, Unknown wrote:
According to the GTP-draft, you are supposed to use hyphens, not
underscores to prefix your private extensions. (I don't like them
either, would have preferred periods or semicolons.)
Thanks for pointing that out to me - I would use hyphens of
201 - 300 of 1773 matches
Mail list logo
