On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 09:40:46AM +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
I have one interesting test that I do, which I take
with a grain of salt, but I use as a first guess estimate. I search
from the opening position a few hundred times and average the time
required to find the move e5. ...
Now I don't feel so bad -- my UCT prog also sucks ass, only slower.
On 4/13/07, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been trying the libego program out of the box, and am up to
200,000 UCT playouts, but still gnugo 3.6 on level 6 is winning 10 out
of 10. ...
If 200,000 play-outs is
Libego played at old CGOS with name sth like UCT-107-???k
100k was about 1550k
200k about 1650k
I don't remember and I can't find the rating list anymore.
Łukasz
On 4/14/07, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been trying the libego program out of the box, and am up to
200,000 UCT
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 20:13 +0200, Łukasz Lew wrote:
Libego played at old CGOS with name sth like UCT-107-???k
100k was about 1550k
200k about 1650k
I don't remember and I can't find the rating list anymore.
Łukasz
I have posted the cross-tables, so you should be able to
figure out
Maybe try this test with libego?
Don Dailey:
I have one interesting test that I do, which I take
with a grain of salt, but I use as a first guess estimate. I search
from the opening position a few hundred times and average the time
required to find the move e5.My assumption is that e5 is
http://greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/public/study.jpg
...
I'm actually testing 2 programs - both of them UCT style go
programs, but one of those programs does uniformly random
play-outs and the other much stronger one is similar to
Mogo, as documented in one of their papers.
Hi Don,
According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems
pruning not interesting moves using patterns.
-gg
Darren Cook: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
With infinite resource, i agree that random playout will find the
best move.
But it seems that nothing is guaranteed for heavy playout.
As Don
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote:
According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems
pruning not interesting moves using patterns.
Yes, but the UCT part will (sooner or later) explore EVERY path.
Christoph
___
computer-go
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote:
According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems
pruning not interesting moves using patterns.
Yes, but the UCT part will (sooner or later) explore EVERY path.
But then again, if you had the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote:
According to the report on MoGo
I doubt it matters, because any
such trick I can think of, could be massaged into a form where the engine
would converge anyway.
It all comes down to the terminology we're using being not so precise
or universally accepted.
And we can be sure that as the hardware improves, engine writers
Christoph Birk: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote:
According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems
pruning not interesting moves using patterns.
Yes, but the UCT part will (sooner or later) explore EVERY path.
Yes, but the estimated score could be
On 4/8/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These programs, in theory, will play perfect GO given
enough time.
... and space. I doubt that your current programs would be capable of
storing a large enough game tree to actually converge to the
alpha-beta value. So in practice, it really
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 05:30 -0400, Weston Markham wrote:
On 4/8/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These programs, in theory, will play perfect GO given
enough time.
... and space. I doubt that your current programs would be capable of
storing a large enough game tree to actually
-go] The physics of Go playing strength.
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 05:30 -0400, Weston Markham wrote:
On 4/8/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These programs, in theory, will play perfect GO given
enough time.
... and space. I doubt that your current programs would be capable of
storing
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 14:46 +0100, Tom Cooper wrote:
Perhaps it would be possible to infer how the lines would look as
perfect play was approached from what the curves looked like
for a smaller board size.
I thought that too, but the studies on 5x5 and 7x7 break down
very quickly. The
Le lundi 9 avril 2007 14:06, Don Dailey a écrit :
But the point is that
as long as you can provide time and memory you will get improvement
until perfect play is reached.
Is there any proof that heavy player converge toward the same solution as
the pure random playout ?
With infinite
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 00:06 +0200, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
Le lundi 9 avril 2007 14:06, Don Dailey a écrit :
But the point is that
as long as you can provide time and memory you will get improvement
until perfect play is reached.
Is there any proof that heavy player converge toward the
On 4/10/07, alain Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le lundi 9 avril 2007 14:06, Don Dailey a écrit:
But the point is that
as long as you can provide time and memory you will get improvement
until perfect play is reached.
Is there any proof that heavy player converge toward the same
With infinite resource, i agree that random playout will find the
best move.
But it seems that nothing is guaranteed for heavy playout.
As Don pointed out before, the reason it converges to perfect play is
because of the UCT part, not because of the playout part.
If the playout part prunes
With a badly designed play-out algorithm you may have a
horribly inefficent search - but it would eventually still
find the best move in principle.
- Don
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 09:16 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
With infinite resource, i agree that random playout will find the
best move.
But
Erik van der Werf wrote:
On 4/10/07, alain Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le lundi 9 avril 2007 14:06, Don Dailey a écrit:
But the point is that
as long as you can provide time and memory you will get improvement
until perfect play is reached.
Is there any proof that heavy player
Le dimanche 8 avril 2007 03:05, Don Dailey a écrit :
A few weeks ago I announced that I was doing a long term
scalability study with computer go on 9x9 boards.
I have constructed a graph of the results so far:
http://greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/public/study.jpg
Thanks for this
Thanks dons for producing these fascinating results. I hope that
when you have finished the study, you will show us not just this
graph, but also the game results (number of wins) that it is
derived from.
At 02:05 08/04/2007, you wrote:
A few weeks ago I announced that I was doing a long term
: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.
A few weeks ago I announced that I was doing a long term
scalability study with computer go on 9x9 boards.
I have constructed a graph of the results so far:
http://greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/public/study.jpg
Although I am still
: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:05 AM
Subject: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.
A few weeks ago I announced that I was doing a long term
scalability study with computer go on 9x9 boards.
I have constructed
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 09:56 +0200, Chrilly wrote:
Is it just enough to make a 2 million playouts version
to beat the top-Dans in 9x9? Is it that easy?
Of course the ELO numbers are arbitrary. I assigned GnuGo 3.7.9
a level of 2000 but on CGOS it is 1800.But CGOS numbers are
arbitrary
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 09:36 +0100, Tom Cooper wrote:
Thanks dons for producing these fascinating results. I hope that
when you have finished the study, you will show us not just this
graph, but also the game results (number of wins) that it is
derived from.
I have all games and all data if
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 14:44 +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote:
Aren't you being a bit optimistic here? It is quite conceivable that
the
curves will flatten out and reach a maximum level somewhat below
perfect
play. I don't see how we can predict the difference between them at
that
time.
UCT has
of computation increase. Don's curve can be tested to the number 18 now.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 14:44
and it does not increase the strength enough to
justify this.
- Don
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.
Date
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 10:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question here is not about UCT(yes, it gaves the same rusults as
alpha-beta). It's about MC scoring. It has not been proved that MC
score will generate the optimum play with large enough simulation.
MC is obviously wrong as an
@computer-go.org
Sent: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 10:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question here is not about UCT(yes, it gaves the same rusults as
alpha-beta). It's about MC scoring. It has not been proved
on CGOS and believe Lazarus is much
stronger because you have not considered the physics of Go
playing strength.
- Don
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
34 matches
Mail list logo
