).
steve uurtamo wrote:
As for other things we'd like to see improved, we could build a list. My
pet
peeve is the KGS score estimator, which is often wildly wrong.
an SE can't be any smarter than a computer player that runs in the
amount of time that you're willing to wait for the SE
As for other things we'd like to see improved, we could build a list. My pet
peeve is the KGS score estimator, which is often wildly wrong.
an SE can't be any smarter than a computer player that runs in the
amount of time that you're willing to wait for the SE to calculate*.
so don't expect
That doesn't seem to directly support deriving information from random
trials. For computer go tuning, would you play multiple games with each
parameter set in order to get a meaningful figure? That seems likely to
be less efficient than treating it as a bandit problem.
you'd decide how many
sorry to self-reply, but:
alternatively, it does sphere packing over the direct product of open
or closed (but bounded) intervals and discrete sets, so you can get a
set of points that is slightly better than a random set of experiments
(i.e. guaranteed to cover the space well).
arguably it
the way to do all of this exactly is with experimental design.
to design experiments correctly that handle inter-term interactions of
moderate degree, this tool is quite useful:
http://www2.research.att.com/~njas/gosset/index.html
s.
___
computer-go
maybe divided by ten?
s.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
I would have found a completely continuous result system
more natural, for instance
giving +40.5 points for each win with 40.5 or more
giving -40.5 points for each loss with
the overall result, so it wouldn't punish
anyone, right?
s.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
steve uurtamo wrote:
maybe divided by ten?
To punish programs or me for the ability of killing 70 stones dragons?
--
robert jasiek
, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
steve uurtamo wrote:
dividing by 10 for everyone wouldn't change the overall result
First you describe something like handicap steps, then you describe
something different (a mere division by 10). Therefore
so it wouldn't punish anyone, right
you could always take a joseki dictionary and build the trees by hand,
if you feel that you're strong enough to work out the most common
variations for the most common opening situations.
s.
2009/11/9 Olivier Teytaud teyt...@lri.fr:
There is a paper about that in
these things have definitions, folks.
everything isn't everything else.
s.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Willemien wilem...@googlemail.com wrote:
I disagree with the point that MCTS is a neural network,
In my opinion (and i maybe completely off target) One of the essences
of neural
Since AMAF values are so helpful, perhaps one can let go of the idea of
sequential play following the rules of go, and basically play moves in
parallel on all empty intersection. Compute new state (do captures) and
repeat a fixed number of times and evaluate.
two thoughts:
i) how do you
zen wins many more of its even games with no handicap than it does
with even, say, an even 2 stone handicap as either black or white. i
haven't compiled numbers for it (i'm not zen's maintainer), but i
watched it happen over the course of about 50 games one day. it was
pretty consistently worse
i think that the rationale behind variable komi is intuitive:
good players can handicap one another more effectively
with komi than with handicap stones, because it's more
fine-grained.
this is likely what is leading to the idea that computers
playing handicap games could use this to their
something i've played with a little bit:
only look at algorithms with the following
property:
* they every so often update an in-memory score for each board position.
you can then run a timing loop around this and just make the
highest-scoring valid move the play. you can use a signal handler
zen builds sekis, and occasionally wins games that way.
s.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Jason Housejason.james.ho...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to explicitly use a monospace font? I can't read your board
positions.
I haven't heard of any handling of seki in playouts except for
what happens with the following?
rank the moves as normal, ignoring ko.
choose the highest ranked legal move at the end.
(i.e. only check for ko-legality when choosing the
final move)
s.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Heikki Levantohei...@lsd.dk wrote:
I am slowly getting my little bot to
But here is someting interesting: In the case of computer
chess it has been estimated that the progress in software
has been roughly the same as the progress in hardware.
Modern chess programs are truly amazing, and not just
a result of faster hardware. There is no reason to think
that
To conclude, it appears that 500 MHz (embedded: poor
cache performance) with little memory for transposition
tables is the lowest you can go, while still staying at grandmaster
level.
that's quite impressive.
some kind of pipelining is involved? are they 32bit?
s.
The handicap system is imperfect anyway, it's almost
a coincidence that it works as well as it does.
okay, this sounds like chess bias. the handicap
system *defines* the difference in skill levels in go.
it's a coincidence that something like ELO can match
fairly well to stones. not the
contests are never hindered by weak opponents,
in my opinion. the more the merrier the better of
course!
s.
2009/6/1 dhillism...@netscape.net:
One factor is that there seems to be a narrow range between too few entrants
and too many. For any given contest, the potential pool includes an
increasing memory is more expensive than increasing cpu speed
at this point. there was an addressing issue with 32bit machines,
but that shouldn't be too much of an issue anymore. most people
want to pay less than or equal to the price of their last machine
whenever they buy one, though, so
is the ssd fast enough to be practical?
s.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Michael Williams
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Michael Williams
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a trick ;)
, you can treat it however you like. But I can't afford
that. I got a cheap SSD and so I had shape my algorithm around which kind
of disk operations it likes and which ones it doesn't.
steve uurtamo wrote:
is the ssd fast enough to be practical?
s.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Michael
also, i'm not sure that a lot of most amateurs' moves are very
good. the spectrum of bad moves is wide, it's just that it takes
someone many stones stronger to severely punish small differences
between good and nearly-good moves. among players of relatively
similar strength, these differences
it would slowly grow in (measured) strength over time.
s.
2009/4/20 terry mcintyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com:
From: Jason House jason.james.ho...@gmail.com
CGOS requires us to use new names on the server each time we change our
bots. It computes the strength
it's simply too easy to write the code to check for this
on the server side for it to be a bug.
:)
s.
2009/4/13 Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com:
Hi Brain,
I get a superko bug report or two almost every month since CGOS has been
running (2 or 3 years?) It's usually due to a
otherwise pair-go wouldn't be as funny to watch.
s.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Michael Williams
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com wrote:
Łukasz Lew wrote:
I would like to rephrase my question:
Let's measure prediction of pro moves of a whole engine while
modifying heavy playouts / MCTS in
Moreover, this is a really complicated issue.
There has been some extensive statistical work on human
cheating in chess done by Ken Regan at the University at Buffalo.
However, this relies heavily upon the fact that computers
dominate human play by a wide margin.
The same is not the case in go.
if it really mattered, remote participants could
use a phone to connect -- it's not like these
are very high-volume transmissions, and the
latency, while high, is still an unimportant
fraction of total time. on the plus side, the
latency is exact. on the minus side, it's a
pretty expensive phone
a slightly simpler protocol:
you let me put a machine on your local network that i control,
and you agree to do an ntp-like service with it.
s.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
my biased $0.02:
i don't think that the point is to call it even.
someone's got to win, and everyone else has
to come in = 2nd place. moreover, pretending
as if this is the kind of contest that can be won
with money (or hardware) alone is just sour grapes.
one way to make this a contest about
i think you might be estimating this incorrectly.
s.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto g...@sjeng.org wrote:
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
What prevents you from freezing in your chess
activities for the next few months and hobbying
full (free) time on computer go.
The amount of
also, it's quite surprising how few watts the human
brain uses.
s.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
that's with or manhattan distance 2 as well? how about 3 or 4?
s.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com wrote:
After 842 games with 19x19 go the version with the 3-4-5 line rule is
scoring about 55%
I thought it might do better, I think the rule is reasonably
don, this rule is very intuitive for a 19x19 board even if you include
the 5th line.
for a 9x9, i'm not so sure.
s.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com wrote:
As previously mentioned, I have been testing the rule which says move
only to the 3rd and 4th lines
the thing about within manhattan distance (small) of other stones type
heuristics is that they seem to leave out the possibility of tenuki.
s.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Thomas Lavergne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've not tryed it for the moment due to lack of time for computer go,
but
and there are nontrivial arguments concerning points way out near the center.
s.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:39 PM, terry mcintyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: tony tang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Back to the original question - accounting for symmetry, there 55
don,
i agree, although i will point out one of C's biggest flaws, which
happens (conveniently for the sake of this argument) to be its
least important one for game programming:
string handling sucks
if i never have to handle a string, i'll choose C without question.
when i need to handle
commercial software was freely available on BBSes when
i was a small child, and very, very many people had modems.
no internet access, but modems and local BBSes.
s.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Matthew Woodcraft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
A few years later I was pointed
for small k, this should give a massive advantage to black.
the additional requirement that white place a stone within the
smallest cityblock distance of the last stone whenever he has
no valid move within distance k of black's last move is an even more
substantial advantage for black. i'm
sorry to be pedantic, but:
13. Chinese scoring.
s.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 13:33 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
I have a rough idea of what that might be. And I suspect that keeping
this
de facto standard implicit has been
The fault tolerance is not a serious problem, even
being tolerant against false result reporting isn't
too bad with a decent error-correcting coding
scheme for handing out the work.
The networking issue is somewhat more serious.
Not the actual network delay, but the mechanism
that the boinc
interested, over the summer,
perhaps.
s.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Zach Wegner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:48 PM, steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The networking issue is somewhat more serious.
Not the actual network delay, but the mechanism
that the boinc client
even-sized boards have the disability that there's no
tengen. i think that this makes mirror go functional
until fairly late in the game.
s.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
every point having 4 liberties would seem to make the opening
much more about influence. my guess is that it's an easier game.
(but that's just wild speculation).
s.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM, David Doshay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First move is easy, but depending upon ratio of diameter
i've read suggestions along the lines of teaching capture go
first. this should get a lot of the life-and-death intuition under the
belt (plus should help learn counting liberties).
s.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Jeff Nowakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:12 -0700,
I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different answers,
so I thought I'd check here.
to get a different set of different answers. :)
Suppose, under Japanese rules, I throw a (hopeless) stone into your
territory. I keep passing until you've actually removed it (playing four
without vast captures of territory, someone
will either violate the superko rule or make an
illegal move before lots of time passes.
s.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Jeff Nowakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
It's a shame Fischer Timing is
i thought that story was about lasker.
s.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know a 4-Dan player who told a story that goes something like this: He and
his friends who were all very strong chess players at the time, discovered
the rules of go and
1d (amateur) is a kind of holy grail for amateurs, because
it separates fairly serious players from people just messing
around, so seeing a program at that level on a 19x19 board at
reasonable (non-blitz) time controls is quite impressive.
1p is generally stronger than all but a small handful of
behind the reality, but with
money involved, people might tend to think more carefully about
the situation.
i think that people have set up such market indicators for all
kinds of things just to see how accurately they predict reality.
s.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM, steve uurtamo [EMAIL
you could use HMMs as long as you
didn't mind retraining (and thus starting your ratings
system over from scratch) every time you added or
subtracted a new player. it'd be relatively fast in any case.
s.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Rémi Coulom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was my post
this approach would also severely limit the number
of players that could be involved in the rating system,
since it would require manipulating an 2*(N choose 2)
matrix, where N is the number of players involved.
s.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:35 PM, steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you
out of curiosity, can you estimate the largest number of opponents
that all played each other a reasonable number of times? (i.e. what's
the largest subset of opponents and number of games that you
can choose so that everyone started playing everyone else in
the subset without anyone leaving for
And what language/platform is Mogo written in; C/C++, Java, Assembly, PHP,
etc.?
This made coffee spray out of my nose (PHP).
I think that C is most likely, based upon how they parallelized it. Did you
read the list posting that mentioned (briefly) how they scaled it up?
s.
this is interesting!
perhaps i misunderstand the setup of the experiment -- what
is the unit of measure for the delay, or how is delay being
implemented?
the FIFO queue is doing what, and where is the delay
being introduced?
thanks,
s.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Hideki Kato [EMAIL
what happens when the opponent deviates from joseki?
knowing how to punish joseki mistakes can be very,
very tricky.
also knowing which joseki to use where is very, very
sophisticated. the wrong joseki can be worse globally
than a non-joseki move.
s.
On 8/12/08, Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
erm.
you guys seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing,
without a clear or precise definition of what you're even
arguing about.
there is a mathematical proof that go, for any fixed sized
board, can be completely solved.
there is a mathematical proof that given a fixed komi and
fixed number
You mentioned three proofs relating to go... could you post the links to the
papers?
the first two statements are consequences of the following:
all two-person, finite, zero-sum games have solutions. *
for a more precise statement, see john von neumann's 1928 paper:
Von Neumann, J: Zur
one more thing -- you may want to keep anchors from playing
one another. at least, i seem to recall that i saw two anchors
playing one another. it can't (by definition) affect anyone's ratings,
so... probably pointless for them to do so, right?
s.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Don Dailey
your calculation is for mogo to beat kim, according to kim and the
mogo team's estimates.
i think that a better thing to measure would be for a computer program
to be able to regularly beat amateurs of any rank without handicap.
i.e. to effectively be at the pro level.
for one thing, this is
again, not true.
there are an infinite number of complexity classes beyond
P that do not require infinite space or infinite time.
exptime would just take exponential time instead of polynomial
time, and pspace would just be able to reuse its available
polynomial space (and thus use at worst
david, is mfgo-12-0805-2c really over 400 ELO better
than mfgo-11, as cgos seems to suggest? or is mfgo11
still rising up into place?
thanks,
s.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:51 AM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, thank you very much, Don, for giving us a reliable 19x19 server.
I still have this theory that when the level of the program is in the
high-dan reaches, it can take proper advantage of an opening book. Alas, it
may be a few years before enough processoring power is routinely available to
test this hypothesis. I know that we duffers can always ruin a
not something he would necessarily do in a professional tournament.
perhaps true. money is a great motivating force, even small amounts
of money (as don has pointed out in the past).
s.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Robert Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah.. the misclick question is
on the internet would be interesting for
postal games, but won't scale up in performance like Mogo on this
supercomputer.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of steve uurtamo
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:45 AM
don,
thanks for your thoughtful comments.
9 handicap is still a real game, in the sense that
the handicapping isn't arbitrary -- it definitely
measures some skill difference. i think that even
a match of 3 games would give quite a bit more
information, although i thought that Mr. Kim had
said
well, in opposition to the p neq np problem, this is a fixed
boardsize. it's an engineering, optimization, and special-purpose
algorithm issue at this point. no need for any solution to work
for all boardsizes in some measurable, scalable way.
s.
On 8/8/08, Robert Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED]
go is worse than np-complete, it's pspace-complete.
s.
On 8/8/08, Robert Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, in opposition to the p neq np problem, this is a fixed
boardsize. it's an engineering, optimization, and special-purpose
algorithm issue at this point. no need for any solution to
Besides... solving a
pspace-complete problem would require infinite memory... isn't that correct?
nope.
s.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
this would work best for a static board evaluator.
a bot that retains state would likely be best served
by using ram to retain state for a single game.
s.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about rotating board sizes? Each round changes the board size.
the $500K/year to hire an expert team of programmers to incorporate
everyone's source code into an open-source framework is pretty
wasteful.
just let people dig through the code on their own. it'd be good enough,
and save $500K/year.
there's no real reason to give out the hardware, either,
the only thing to watch is that you'll likely need
30+ bits from these guys to seed a prng, and
getting those bits in any organized way is likely
going to happen on a regular schedule (i.e. if
you get them in a loop, you're likely going to
space them out in an organized way).
s.
On 5/15/08, Don
magnus,
I hate to ask the obvious, but how much time does each simulation
take?
If 100 simulations would be enough information to get it out of its
rut, why not just check every legal move for (say) 100 simulations before doing
anything else?
on another note, i think that it's cool that you
The difference (and I'm not defending HP here) is that a print scheduler
for your OS shouldn't even be *writable* by the install wizard for your
printer.
Imagine an OS environment where a printer is a completely passive
device that accepts requests to print onto paper. Imagine that it doesn't
That's the real problem with Windows. I need a double boot, place
the OS on a FAT32 partition and have a copy of every file + an
image of the installed partition. Every day I fight against the
operating system I have paid for and if the OS doesn't let me
change it the nice way I have to
Hello,
I'm getting the same thing here in windows:
Cannot extract the embedded font...
Was it made with pdflatex or somesuch? Could
it be a version issue there?
s.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi David
But anyways, NetBSD is the best.
yes, this is obviously true.
on another (the original?) note, the relevant factor regarding
being able to open a scientific paper on multiple platforms is that it
be readable by as many people as possible -- even those
people who run windows.
OS belligerence is
don,
But I also discovered that there seems to be no benefit whatsoever in
removing them from the play-outs.I have no real explanation for
this. But it does tell me that the play-outs are very different in
nature from the tree - you cannot just use the same algorithms for
congratulations to mogo on its performance today!
it was an excellent result (1-2) versus a professional,
s.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
why doesn't someone simply try this and post the results,
if they think that it would help?
s.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
not assuming that MC plays the
You have to have a nakade pattern on the
board somewhere, the score has to be close and in your favor
considering the nakade, and the program has to believe that it is more
advantageous to give away stones that not.
eh, or it can't see the capture until it's only a few moves away,
hey, that's great!
s.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Gunnar Farnebäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those of you who enjoy uncommon positions, CGOS 9x9 game 322479
offers a lot of seki. This is the final position:
A B C D E F G H J
9 . X X O . O . X . 9
8 X . X O O X X X X 8
7
cool. do you have any examples from a 19x19 game? that's what
i was referring to when i said that i've never seen an MC player
play out a ko fight.
thanks,
s.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is an sgf-game of a long kofight on 9x9 between
So I don't think
sophisticated ko fights are resolved but I not strong enough to really
quantify this.
It's very often the case that games between, say, two 7d players on KGS
will come down, in large part, to one or two or three ko fights and their
resolution. or even the threat of a ko
] wrote:
steve uurtamo wrote:
So I don't think
sophisticated ko fights are resolved but I not strong enough to really
quantify this.
It's very often the case that games between, say, two 7d players on KGS
will come down, in large part, to one or two or three ko fights
abandon the
fight because something else looks more interesting. this is fairly
rare behavior in human games, which is why i noticed it of these
(MC) players.
s.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:37 PM, steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the general idea is that if the ko represents something of value X
by the UCT tree part.
- Message d'origine
De : steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Envoyé le : Dimanche, 2 Mars 2008, 20h25mn 33s
Objet : Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]
a few subtleties --
it's possible for a machine
the issue with ko is the order in which the ko threats are played,
which can only be successfully evaluated if the average playout
finishes the ko correctly.
s.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 4:56 PM, ivan dubois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I think I see what you mean, but I am not sure I really
examples:
playing Mogo_13_06 vs Leela_05 K10 J10 D4 D6 D10 C9 K4 K9 J9 K11 L10
H9 J8 H8 H10 J11 G7 H7 E6 F6 E7 E5 D5 C7 H6 D9 J7 F5 E9 G10 G6 J6 K6
J5 G8 G9 K7 F8 F7 E8 G5 F3 F4 D7 F9 D8 L11 E10 G3 E3 E4 C3 D3 D2 F2 E2
G2 L12 B4 B3 M12 C4 C5 B5 K12 J12 K13 J13 L13 M13 L12 A4 E1 F1 G1 H2
M2 M3 L2
We should be careful about any conclusions ... your pairing algorithm
currently creates leela-vs-leela games only.
after 1500 or so games per leela, we should be able to tell.
i'm getting some leela vs. mogo games already...
s.
___
computer-go
i agree with everything except for the seeding. it takes very few games
(especially with the distribution you suggest) to get somewhat near the
right spot. with 500-ish games being played per player, the initial time
to get into the right place isn't unreasonable.
keep in mind that if you
I
would
agree
at
100%
if
it
wasn't
for
the
known
limitations:
Nakade,
not
filling
own
eyes,
etc.
Because
the
program
is
blind
to
them
it
is
blind
in
both
senses:
it
does
not
consider
those
moves
when
defending,
but
it
does
not
consider
them
when
But
if
ever
there's
new
version
of
GTP
in
the
making
I
would
suggest
replacing
the
'komi'
and
'board_size'
commands
by
a
more
general
'set
property-
name
property-value'
command
and
turn
the
Go
Text
Protocol
more
into
a
Game
Text
Protocol.
okay,
you should rename the protocol TP then.
s.
- Original Message
From: Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:47:32 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] More generic GTP
I
didn't
say
there
was
a
big
difference.
It's
it is a good thing to make your prior knowledge completely
fair (in the sense of not having any bias) when doing bayesian
calculations. any estimator being used will reshape that
knowledge on the fly.
the idea is that your prior knowledge of the ELO ranking should
be about the same for every
But that's not relevant for this study. All that matters is the 14
out
of 20 total score and the order should not matter one little bit.
With players that change, that is very relevant however.
lemme think that over.
by the way, attached is what a quadratic fit looks like to the
PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:18:30 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 Study
steve uurtamo wrote:
it is a good thing to make your prior knowledge completely
fair (in the sense of not having any bias) when doing bayesian
calculations
i recommend:
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/gosset/index.html
s.
- Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:35:01 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 MC improvement
Eric Boesch
This
it's a natural tendency to look for patterns
in data as soon as you have any data at
all. some of these patterns i'd be willing to
bet will hold up over time -- but the bayesian
in me would say that is simply because they have
further given evidence for my prior beliefs.
requiring everyone to
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
