I also agree that 9x9 doesn't compare to 19x19. I disagree that it's
not interesting. It would be uninteresting if, for instance, someone
like you were just as good at the top pro's at 9x9. It stops being
interested when it can be mastered.If the top players can always
play a
Except for the relation between not finding 9x9 games
which is *not* real go, you can find as many 19x19 games
as you want, I agree with Chrilly.
Let's accept it. We are amateurs, all except those who
are paid by some University to research on go. And even
some of them are, because a serious go
Very well said Jacques. I agree with everything you said.
A couple of comment below.
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 12:02 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Except for the relation between not finding 9x9 games
which is *not* real go, you can find as many 19x19 games
as you want, I agree with Chrilly.
I'll bet there have been millions of 9x9 games by very strong
players, they are probably just not readily accessible.
Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur),
and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9 games with people who were just learning
the rules. I played
On 7/9/07, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur),
and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9 games with people who were just learning
the rules. I played in a couple of 9x9 tournaments on the crazy go day at
the go congress
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 09:12 -0700, David Fotland wrote:
I'll bet there have been millions of 9x9 games by very strong
players, they are probably just not readily accessible.
Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur),
and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9
Brian,
The idea of moving towards 13x13 appeals to me too. I would even
consider removing the 9x9 server and going to 13x13 instead if I didn't
think it would cause an out-rage.
At some point sticking with 9x9 is going to inhibit progress in my
opinion. And a really strong 13x13 program is
I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss ratio to
approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to improvements. As one tweaks the
program, the progress would be measurable within a few games, one's handicap
would decrease.
Is it possible to tie together the
I think it would be great to try this out. Perhaps at 13x13.
On 7/9/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:10 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss
ratio to approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to
On 7/9/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the common formula is 100 ELO per stone? I think we could
start with this guess (or a better one) and after a few weeks of play we
could do a statistical analysis to see if things are as they should be.
Then we could make any adjustments
Don Dailey wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:10 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss
ratio to approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to improvements.
As one tweaks the program, the progress would be measurable within a
few
Yes. This number is strongly dependent on strength and board size I
think. Very roughly speaking, you can argue as follows
1) in a 9x9 game, the weaker player has only 1/4 as many moves in
which to throw away the handicap advantage (compared to 19x19).
2) weak players lose so many points
Sil wrote:
How about http://home.wwgo.jp/jp/minigo/
It seems that only 24 games are available. Is the whole collection
available somewhere?
Rémi
I have read dozens of times that computer-Go is the next big challenge.
But in fact it is a completly amateuristic field where even the most basic
Hi Chrilly,
1) there are database of thousands of professional games for few
dollards. There are not 9x9, but (i) making database is not making
progress in the field, it is just having some temporary advantage in
tournaments. (ii) Opening is much less important in Go than in Chess,
it is why we
Le dimanche 8 juillet 2007 11:51, chrilly a écrit :
If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money.
There was a computer challenge with 1 million dollar prize during
many years, for a program abble to beat one professional choosen by the
sponsor. I don't know if it is still
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], alain
Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Le dimanche 8 juillet 2007 11:51, chrilly a écrit :
If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money.
There was a computer challenge with 1 million dollar prize during
many years, for a program abble to
3) seriousness can't be measured as the short term money you can make
directly selling your work. I understand that you think that
researchers are paid just to play writing useless papers for themself.
But there are not more stupid than others, and maybe they think they
are doing something
Chrilly,
The purpose of investment is to generate a return exceeding the original
investment, i.e. a profit. Given the state of Go, I am finding it
difficult to imagine why an investor would choose to put any good money
into Go. There is absolutely no reliable expectation that Go will
On 8, Jul 2007, at 2:51 AM, chrilly wrote:
If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money.
According to Herodotus The Histories right after king Xerxes of
Persia lost 20,000 men at Thermopylae fighting 300 Spartans and a
collection of less than 100 others, a few Arcadian
It seems to me that a domain where everything is so amateuristic has
its advantages, if you can only see them. Here is a field that is
small enough that most people know each other and anyone can
contribute with a certain amount of effort. These are the early days;
computer go's best years are
Chrilly,
It is hard to disagree with what Jim writes, but I will in a small way.
When I recently flew to Asia, the screen on the seatback in front of
me offered Go as one of its games. At its highest level it played far
worse than the average program on CGOS or in a KGS computer
David,
Very well said. Thank you.
Jim
David Doshay wrote:
Chrilly,
It is hard to disagree with what Jim writes, but I will in a small way.
When I recently flew to Asia, the screen on the seatback in front of
me offered Go as one of its games. At its highest level it played far
worse
It seems to me that a domain where everything is so amateuristic has
its advantages, if you can only see them. Here is a field that is
small enough that most people know each other and anyone can
contribute with a certain amount of effort. These are the early days;
computer go's best years
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 11:23 -0700, Brian Slesinsky wrote:
It seems to me that a domain where everything is so amateuristic has
its advantages, if you can only see them. Here is a field that is
small enough that most people know each other and anyone can
contribute with a certain amount of
steve uurtamo said:
I have read dozens of times that computer-Go is the next big
challenge. But in fact it is a completly amateuristic field where even
the most basic things are missing.
one thing that it seems to have plenty of is chess programmers who are
shocked and surprised that their
However GTP was way better than what
preceded it and yet even the top programmers believed GMP was
sent by god and anything else was blasphemy.
I have to object to this characterization :) GMP was very good at what is
was designed to do, which was to allow people to play using a 1200 baud
26 matches
Mail list logo
