Personally, I use the terminology in much the same way as Heikki. I
use the word mistake to describe (for example) a move that loses a
large group, but does not change the game from a win to a loss. It
makes sense to me to generally apply mistake to any move that loses
points relative to the
Yes, we heard that argument for years in computer chess and it never
happened.
Do you have some kind of basis for believe that?
i wouldn't argue that future algorithms can't be time-doubled beyond
the existing skill level of people, just that the current evidence is weak
that we already
On 21-jan-07, at 19:27, Don Dailey wrote:
not considering biological factors
which would cut into this a bit.
There was a time when there were no time-limits in Go, which was
abused by many players by turning a game into a stamina contest. I
believe this practice was abandoned when
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Ray Tayek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 4:18 am
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
also i suspect that at least 33% of the moves (at my 1-dan level)
are
wrong (what you
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 13:34 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
Don,
I agree that more time generally leads to better moves. Also in Go.
Where I think Go differs from Chess is the qualitative difference
between a move that was thought about for 10 sec. or 2 hrs. is much
smaller in Go than in
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 11:32 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By the way, can I assume that in world champion GO matches they use
fast time controls because long time controls don't help in Go?
Don probably had his tongue in cheek when he typed that, but
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 7:02 pm
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
By the way, can I assume that in world champion GO matches they use
fast time
A lot of this interesting discussion has been about whether humans can make use
of extra time. Some participants ( such as Dave Devos ) believe that, after a
certain point, humans cannot
improve their rank, at least not linearly with respect to time alloted. Fair
enough; we humans require
If you guys are correct thinking the nature of the game is such that
humans cannot improve with time, then the computers will pull
ahead more and more at longer time controls.
let's adjust this to avoid the strawman and say that the counter-argument
is that humans cannot improve much
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 15:06 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Years ago A player in the chess
club kept beating me over the head with a non-standard
opening move that was difficult to refute. I got sick
of this, sat down in the privacy of my own home and
didn't get back up until I discovered the
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: zaterdag, januari 20, 2007 9:06 pm
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer
go program's rank.
Years ago A player in the chess
club kept beating me over the head with a non
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 21:55 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion in Go a game leaves the standard opening book very
quickly, usually early in the opening. There are so many ways to play
in the opening. If you opponent is trying to manipulate you into his
favourite joseki(the taisha
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 15:34 -0700, Arend Bayer wrote:
Hi Don,
On 1/20/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If what you are saying is true, this is a waste of time.
They should not be able to produce better quality moves
than what they produce over the board.
Le dimanche 21 janvier 2007 01:23, Don Dailey a écrit :
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 15:34 -0700, Arend Bayer wrote:
Hi Don,
To put another perspective on it: If I had an hour for every move in a
tournament game, I might play good EGF 5d level instead of average EGF
4d. That's a big difference
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 14:04 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
My point being that a top pro will find a high quality move in the time
it takes him to move the mouse from one side of the board to the other.
But still it's *WAY* below his normal tournament playing strength to
play so quickly...
for what it's worth, strong players often spend enormous amounts of time
on moves. professional tournament games are not generally of the
2-second-per-move variety. historically, they have taken days, but i'm not
sure what the standard is now. perhaps someone who has seen a web
simulcast of a
At 08:45 PM 1/18/2007, you wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 20:05 -0800, Ray Tayek wrote:
yes. i would easily give my opponent *much* more time than a few
handicap stones. the effect of time making someone (or thing) play
better (or worse) is non-linear and probably only effective over some
Hi,
The challenge to write a go playing program that could beat a professional was
issued before the wide availability of Internet Go Servers, and broadband
access.
Under these new conditions, it is trivial to write such a program, provided
the game takes place on a server, and at time limits
Hi Dan,
Your suggestions hits at what I consider a basic truth or an axiom for
game playing entities, humans or computers - that strength is a
function of time and memory.Skill can be viewed as time. The
skillful player is just making his time count more by being more
efficient, sometimes
, but lowering the time limit until
the stronger player loses on time is just silly.
Dave
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: dan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: donderdag, januari 18, 2007 10:18 pm
Onderwerp: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
Hi,
The challenge
: donderdag, januari 18, 2007 10:18 pm
Onderwerp: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
Hi,
The challenge to write a go playing program that could beat a
professional was
issued before the wide availability of Internet Go Servers, and
broadband
There is one way to attempt to adjust for this - give the computer a 1
or
2 second penalty for each move.
- Don
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:06 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
especially because computers don't have to click the relevent move
with a mouse. They just think it and its done. Make a
measure of a computer go
program's rank.
There is one way to attempt to adjust for this - give the computer
a 1
or
2 second penalty for each move.
- Don
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:06 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
especially because computers don't have to click the relevent move
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's
rank.
In my opinion lowering the time limit just forces players (human and
computer) towards random play. I am sure there exists a time limit
where a random playing program
24 matches
Mail list logo
