Don Dailey wrote:
> I would like to get 3 or 4 volunteers to run a copy of the Anchor.
> [...]
> The Anchors will be fixed at 1800 ELO.
Just a thought: couldn't different speeds of the computers running the
Anchors lead to differnt strengths?
eph
___
c
Don Dailey wrote:
> 1. controller sends async_genmove
> 2. controller (after some period of time) sends abort.
> 3. engine responds to aysnc_genmove
> 4. engine responds to the abort search
A effect might be that the engine has a gamestate where it's move has
taken place, while in the cont
Unknown wrote:
> BTW: once you choose the /8 gain by implementing canonicalization,
> you'll probably want to implement /2 color-swaps, too. (but this will
> only be profitable for libraries, not for 'history' such as in Don's
> case.)
The /2 with color-swaps would work fine with librarys that don
Hello,
David Doshay wrote:
> On 3, Feb 2007, at 2:51 AM, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
>
>> the speed of the best simulation policy in MoGo is 0.6 * the speed
>> of the uniform random one.
>
> I think that this is very good. You give up less than a factor of 2
> from uniform random and you probably get bet
Peter Drake wrote:
> There are a number of definitions of solved, ranging from "a program
> exists that can beat any human" to "we can quickly determine, for any
> position, the best move and the result under optimal play". In the
> latter strong sense, I believe Go has only been solved up to 5x5,
Peter Drake wrote:
> I tried creating a random number generator
>
> java.util.Random rand = new java.util.Random()
>
> and then asking it for a random int
>
> rand.nextInt()
>
> which I would then take modulo the board size to choose a random
> point.
Note that "rand.nextInt(int n)" might be what
hi,
steve uurtamo wrote:
> this might be a counterproductive idea,
> but does anyone who mc's also ponder?
a quick question from a non-nativ english speaker: what does "ponder"
mean here?
thanks
eph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go
