On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It depends very much on what exactly you mean by amateur master
level. Is it a level that compares to amateur master level in chess?
And what is amateur master level in chess? USCF master, FIDE master
or international
Birk
Verzonden: wo 19-11-2008 18:19
Aan: computer-go
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...
On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It depends very much on what exactly you mean by amateur master
level. Is it a level that compares
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that would not be enough, because that would only fix one point.
You can use the width too. That should give a pretty good comparision
for moderatly strong/weak players (see below).
EGF ratings are not pure Elo ratings. EGF ratings are
is that this page confims my speculations.
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Andy
Verzonden: wo 19-11-2008 19:26
Aan: computer-go
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...
Here you go!
http://senseis.xmp.net/?RatingHistogramComparisons
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 10:24 -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
That should not matter much. The typical chess player should be
as strong as the typical Go player and I also expect the strength
distribution to follow similar lines.
Larry Kaufman, a chess Grandmaster and also an expert in many games
claims can be made that computer-go is withing 3%
from the human top.
Dave
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: wo 19-11-2008 20:19
Aan: computer-go
Onderwerp: RE: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...
That is wonderful!
When I look
Not sure if I buy that. For any complex game, you have a range or random player to best-in-world player. There are nearly infinite actual ratings between the
two. Since Go is clearly more complex than chess, Go's nearly infinite is probably larger that chess's nearly infinite, but that's
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 15:03 -0500, Michael Williams wrote:
Not sure if I buy that. For any complex game, you have a range or random
player to best-in-world player. There are nearly infinite actual ratings
between the
two. Since Go is clearly more complex than chess, Go's nearly infinite
Don Dailey wrote:
I'm talking about the fattest portion of the human range of skill. If
you consider the fattest part of the bell, say the 99% of the players
not extremely weak or extremely strong, the range is pretty limited.
In chess it's probably more like 2000, not the 3000 I was saying
Don Dailey
Verzonden: wo 19-11-2008 20:59
Aan: computer-go
Onderwerp: RE: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 10:24 -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
That should not matter much. The typical chess player should be
as strong as the typical Go player and I also expect
end.
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: wo 19-11-2008 22:07
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; computer-go
Onderwerp: RE: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...
I doubt that much can be learned from comparing the overall length of rating
scales
The well at the end of the title is implied. And computers still can't play
19x19 Go anywhere near the master level.
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
Dear Bob Hearn,
it is not what you have been looking for, but nevertheless
I want to ask you if the title of your talk
Games Computers Can't Play is still
On Nov 18, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Michael Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The well at the end of the title is implied. And computers still
can't play 19x19 Go anywhere near the master level.
I'm not very familiar with go terms, but I think kyu means student and
dan means master.
It may
On 18-nov-08, at 11:25, Jason House wrote:
On Nov 18, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Michael Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The well at the end of the title is implied. And computers
still can't play 19x19 Go anywhere near the master level.
I'm not very familiar with go terms, but I think kyu
-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:51:43 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...
On 18-nov-08, at 11:25, Jason House wrote:
On Nov 18, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Michael Williams
wrote:
The well at the end of the title is implied
, November 18, 2008 4:43 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...
The well at the end of the title is implied. And computers still can't
play
19x19 Go anywhere near the master level.
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
Dear Bob Hearn,
it is not what you have been
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 08:28 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
Many Faces gained 5 ranks when I added MCTS to it (with about 7 months
of
full time work), so I have to agree that Monte Carlo changed our
world.
I remember that you were not a true believer at first :-)
- Don
signature.asc
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 08:28 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
Many Faces gained 5 ranks when I added MCTS to it (with about 7 months
of full time work), so I have to agree that Monte Carlo changed our
world.
I remember that you were not a true believer
On 18-nov-08, at 14:32, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 08:28 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
Many Faces gained 5 ranks when I added MCTS to it (with about 7
months
of
full time work), so I have to agree that Monte Carlo changed our
world.
I remember that you were not a true believer
]; computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...
On 18-nov-08, at 14:32, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 08:28 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
Many Faces gained 5 ranks when I added MCTS to it (with about 7
months
of
full time work), so I have to agree
I think it was the surprisingly useful combination of UCT with Monte-Carlo
that got the attention of the 'old school' Go programmers.
I would say Monte-Carlo + Tree Search rather than Monte-Carlo + UCT. You
can have a very strong program without UCT.
You can't without the incremental tree +
On Nov 17, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Ingo Althöfer wrote:
Dear Bob Hearn,
it is not what you have been looking for, but nevertheless
I want to ask you if the title of your talk
Games Computers Can't Play is still up-to-date.
I would accept something like
Games Computers Could not play well before
I had never heard of that. A Google search turned up this list of interesting
Go variants: http://www.usgo.org/resources/downloads/deviantgo.pdf
Bob Hearn wrote:
On Nov 17, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Ingo Althöfer wrote:
Dear Bob Hearn,
it is not what you have been looking for, but nevertheless
Jason House
Verzonden: di 18-11-2008 14:25
Aan: computer-go
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...
On Nov 18, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Michael Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The well at the end of the title is implied. And computers still
can't play 19x19 Go anywhere near
Dear Bob,
thanks for your explanations. Now I see clearer.
First, the title is deliberately provocative.
Accepted.
Also, though, the talk is not just about go: some of it is about
formally undecidable games, that computers provably can't play
well (and of course, that humans can't
Dear Bob Hearn,
it is not what you have been looking for, but nevertheless
I want to ask you if the title of your talk
Games Computers Can't Play is still up-to-date.
I would accept something like
Games Computers Could not play well before 2003,
but Monte Carlo has changed our world.
Ingo
26 matches
Mail list logo
