Le jeudi 17 janvier 2008, Don Dailey a écrit :
Perfect! I will adjust the level so that it plays as strong as
possible on CGOS without taking a risk of getting into time trouble on
modest hardware. Then I can make Mogo the anchor player.
Even if i love Mogo, and i am very impressed,
It's not real important for this test, but I think I will use
gnugo-3.7.11 as the anchor and set it to 1800.0 ELO - which I think is
fairly close to what it would do on CGOS.
I will use level 10.
- Don
Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
Le jeudi 17 janvier 2008, Don Dailey a écrit :
Perfect! I
2006/12/26, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There are many other ways to take advantage of your opponent in
chess that I consider sound if applied in a very measured and
careful way. None of them call for making truly unsound moves,
especially when you consider that in a losing position, all
On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree :)
What I wanted to ask is:
Does there exists two final (no profitable move left) 9x9 board
positions that their area score differ by one point ?
Ah, sorry :)
I believe there is, yes (that's what I was hinting at with almost).
There
On 12/27/06, nando [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree :)
What I wanted to ask is:
Does there exists two final (no profitable move left) 9x9 board
positions that their area score differ by one point ?
Ah, sorry :)
I believe there is, yes
On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
Normal seki gives two neutral points, so it doesn't matter.
I'm walking on increasingly thin ice (for me), but you're right,
normal sekis shouldn't change things. Though, there are also beasts
like this one:
But not all of those are final (often dead stones remain on board).
But one eye seki is an answer for me.
Thanks,
Lukasz
On 12/27/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I extracted all the games from one month and uniq'd them, it looks
like
all results are possible:
Forfeit B+
Forfeit
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
The best move may be a somewhat risky invasion -
of course one has to assume the partner will not
play perfectly, but everybody does that every time
anyway, right? Otherwise nobody would have any hope
to win and so nobody would play.
I agree. That's easy for humans
Le lundi 25 décembre 2006 00:46, Don Dailey a écrit :
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 13:54 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
There is no fixed relationship between ELO and handicap stones. Stronger
players have less variation in their play, so a handicap stone is worth more
ELO points for a stronger
Le lundi 25 décembre 2006 15:35, Jacques Basaldúa a écrit :
I have seen (many times) GnuGo not being able to
win a H7 game to an opponent more than 10 kyu
weaker. That happens because it had to invade
unclear positions.
This is a feature of GNU Go :-)
GNU Go has very small invasion capacity,
On 12/26/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the answer is that there is no gtp command available that defines
whether handicap stones are also compensated or by how much.
Just like there's no GTP command to define the ruleset. This
compensation is 0 in japanese rules, N in chinese
On 12/26/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that's my plan.I'm going to use fixed handicap and 1 stone
compensation per handicap stone.
One question I have - is compensation normally given in the 1 stone
case?
I believe, no.
Also, in the case of NO handicap, what komi is
Hideki Kato wrote:
In Nihon Kiin's ELO system(1), 1000 ELO is 1 rank,
The Elo rating is based on two assumptions:
a. The performance of each player in each game is a
normally distributed random variable.
b. All players performance have the same standard
deviation. (This is
On 12/25/06, Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hideki Kato wrote:
Nevertheless, I have certain experience (not with
MC) of computer go with handicap and I can tell:
Waiting for the opponent to blunder is only a good
strategy if the handicap is lower than it should.
E.g. 7 kyu difference
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
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 and handicap stones. Stronger
players have less variation in their play, so a handicap stone is worth more
ELO points for a stronger player than a
Are you sure about this? Here is what I've seen on Wikipedia but I've
also seen this before from other sources:
Another departure from tradition is that ELO ratings are
calibrated by
winning percentage, not by stone handicaps. An extra handicap
stone
has
] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:04 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player
So really, what I want to be able to do is:
1. Use the ELO rating system.
2. Determine how many ELO points 1 stone handicap is worth.
3. 2
Quoting Christian Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
extra strength/stability.
One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
sure all
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.
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The simplest thing is to just explain it on a web page, but there is no
explicit
way to tell the programs that white is being compensated (or not) for
the
handicap stones and that bothers me.
The first step is to inform future programmers of the
I think what I will do is see if there is an existing gtp command, if
not
I will see if there is a kgs extension for it - if there is I will
imitate
it with a cgos extension.
If a program doesn't honor the extension I'll just document how it works
and
what to expect.
I'm not going to
On 12/23/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Hi,
On 12/22/06, Stuart A. Yeates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/21/06, Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Handicap play is a *different* problem.
The rules of go include rules for handicapping.
It seems to me that this implies that a complete solution for the game of go
must include
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 weakens monte carlo programs.
My (jokingly serious) point was
This is the strategy that one uses even in even games, right? One
plays what one thinks is best given the position, and if the
opponent's reply is less than optimal one tries to punish it (with
various degrees of success, but that's another issue :-))
It's the strategy in even games, but not
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
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 all
moves as losing and will play almost randomly.
I don't agree. Here is the
Thanks for sending the statistics. I'll try them out later on my
programs too.
There is only 1 way to resolve this - maybe we should test it out
on a 19x19 handicap server. We can play a few weeks and then take
a look at the statistics later. I predict that gnugo will perform
better on
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
on 9x9 boards. To make a long story short, I didn't see any evidence
that this algorithm is fundamentally disadvantaged in handicap games.
In fact, I agree with Remi's view that it is particularly *well*
suited to handicap games compared to territory based
There's also the small issue of the compensation given to white
because of the extra black stones on the board. Setting a modified
komi would break (MC-)programs with an internal rule for it. Not
setting it would break those who does not use that rule.
How is this compensation handled by the
I'm trying to figure this out. If you get a 9 stone handicap, you have
to give back those 9 stones? So a 9 stone handicap is not quite as
much
as it seems although it's still pretty good.
- Don
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 21:24 +0100, Christian Nilsson wrote:
There's also the small issue of
Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
extra strength/stability.
One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
Yes, in Chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
extra strength/stability.
To be slightly more specific, the extra compensation is specific to
area scoring rule systems. In a game with only two passes,
scoring.
Terry McIntyre
UNIX for hire
software development / systems administration / security
- Original Message
From: Christian Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 12:46:40 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player
Yes
So really, what I want to be able to do is:
1. Use the ELO rating system.
2. Determine how many ELO points 1 stone handicap is worth.
3. 2 stones are worth
4. 3 stones are worth,
etc.
When two players are matched, the server gives the
Le vendredi 22 décembre 2006 21:44, Don Dailey a écrit :
[...]
I still have a hard time believing that the system scales very well
across a 9 kyu range.
Handicap system works incredibly well, from very weak kyu to strong dan.
Moreover, the problem of the black players are the same whatever his
Increasing komi is much easier than placing stores, but a much weaker
representation of how go games are actually played in the real world.
cheers
stuart
On 12/15/06, Hideki Kato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Increasing KOMI is much easier than placing stones, right?
Jacques Basaldúa‚³‚ñ [EMAIL
, December 13, 2006 2:47 AM
Subject: [computer-go] Anchor Player
If I set up a 19x19 server, we will need an Anchor player. Here is
what I need from an Anchor player:
3. Linux binary - because it runs on the server itself.
___
computer-go
Le mercredi 13 décembre 2006 05:53, Don Dailey a écrit :
Does a 1 kyu difference mean I can give you 1 stone if I am better and
expect to come out about even?
yes, 1 handi is 0.5 komi.
Does this all work out in a transitive way? If a 6 kyu can give a 7
kyu 1 stone, and the 7 kyu can give
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
Le Mercredi 13 Décembre 2006 05:56, Don Dailey a écrit :
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 04:48 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GnuGo is another possibility and has the advantage of being a well
known quantity, but Gnugo fails to meet some of the criteria above
such as being too deterministic and
Subject: [computer-go] Anchor Player
If I set up a 19x19 server, we will need an Anchor player.
Here is what I need from an Anchor player:
1. Non-deterministic - should not play same game every time.
2. Consistent - plays at the same strength at a level that is not
based
I suggest you use anchorman. It will be weaker on 19x19, but so will the
other programs.
It depends on the programs. Gnugo or Aya scale very well on 19x19. Then
anchorMan would be far too weak for Aya and gnugo, and certainly other
programs. But we can try some experiments, and perhaps change
46 matches
Mail list logo
