Hi Don
The client does not sent time_left unless time_settings is also
implemented.So your engine must also implement time_settings which
is needed to inform your program of the level it will be playing at.
I do implement time_settings. The server only sends a list_commands at the
I don't know what to tell you - the command works for everyone else.
I noticed that your list is upper-case. This might be the problem. I
don't remember if GTP is case senstitive or not, but I'm pretty sure
cgos requires lower case in these commands.
- Don
Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Hi Don
None of the KGS specific extensions are required or used. undo is not
necessary.
- Don
Don Dailey wrote:
I don't know what to tell you - the command works for everyone else.
I noticed that your list is upper-case. This might be the problem. I
don't remember if GTP is case senstitive or
On Jan 8, 2008 7:42 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
None of the KGS specific extensions are required or used. undo is not
necessary.
I know that CGOS will use kgs-time_settings if it's available.
___
computer-go mailing list
I didn't know kgs had that. CGOS doesn't use kgs-time_settings. Look
at the cgos3.tcl script to see.
My first thought was that I might be doing regular expression matching
to pick up time_settings but that is not the case, I put all the
known_commands in a hash in order to test if a program
On 5-jan-08, at 11:48, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Would you explain the details of the playout policy?
(1) Captures of groups that could not save themselves last move.
(2) Save groups in atari due to last move by capturing or extending.
(3) Patterns next to last move.
(4) Global moves.
The www page for the Mathematical Go book refers to the Japanese word
tedomori -- which I googled; this book page is the only reference to
tedomori. No mention on senseis.xmp.net; can anyone supply a definition?
Thanks!
Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
“Wherever is found what is called a
- Original Message
From: Stuart A. Yeates [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I recommend Mathematical Go: Chilling Gets the Last Point by Elwyn
Berlekamp and David Wolfe. The book contains a number of such
positions, as well as an approach that allows to make as many more as
you need.
Hi!
On Jan 8, 2008 7:17 PM, terry mcintyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The www page for the Mathematical Go book refers to the Japanese word
tedomori -- which I googled; this book page is the only reference to
tedomori. No mention on senseis.xmp.net; can anyone supply a definition?
It's tedomari
I think Dave Hillis coined this term heavy playouts.
In the first programs the play-outs were uniformly random. Any move
would get played with equal likelihood with the exception of eye-filling
moves which don't get played at all of course.
But it was found that the program improves if
I think there are two reasons there are not more programs on 19x19 CGOS:
1) The anchor, Gnugo, is quite strong, Many Faces 12 is stronger, and
CrazyStone is much stronger. Since the programs playing are so strong, it
is demoralizing for a new program to lose so often. Without weaker
The only reason that SlugGo is not on 19x19 CGOS is that we are working
towards a version that does something different than the version that
was
running a year ago.
When we have the new features running we will begin playing there.
It is my opinion that 30 minutes per side is common for
I haven't been using CGOS at all lately (planned gap in development around
the holidays). When I do start up again, it'll probably be on the 9x9
server. I'd do this because of the following reasons:
* Games finish faster on the 9x9 server
* Current testing/tuning is done on 9x9
(I have a short
Le mardi 8 janvier 2008, terry mcintyre a écrit :
- Original Message
From: Stuart A. Yeates [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I recommend Mathematical Go: Chilling Gets the Last Point by Elwyn
Berlekamp and David Wolfe. The book contains a number of such
positions, as well as an approach that
I forgot to mention, that I do eventually play to have multi-time
control on the servers. One time control will be very slow and the
other will be very fast.You would be able to get several games in
during the same period of time of 1 long game.
For 9x9 it might be something like this:
Hi David,
Putting some weaker programs on CGOS is a good idea - I would like to
see it seeded with players of many different strengths.
Olivier is in charge of cgos 19x19 so whatever time he wants to set is
up to him.I would suggest to him to set a 1 second time gift if he
chooses to play
That would be exciting seeing your team get involved with this Monte
Carlo stuff, especially since you have some previous experience with
this.
- Don
David Doshay wrote:
I have been interested in monte-carlo approaches to Go since running
my first MC simulations in magnetic phase
At 10:03 AM 1/8/2008, you wrote:
- Original Message
From: Stuart A. Yeates [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I recommend Mathematical Go: Chilling Gets the Last Point by
Elwyn ...
http://math.berkeley.edu/%7Eberlek/cgt/gobook.htmlhttp://math.berkeley.edu/~berlek/cgt/gobook.html
Most interesting!
Le mardi 8 janvier 2008, Don Dailey a écrit :
...
On 19x19 it might be 30 minutes per side like we have now, with 5
minute games for the fast time control.We would probably have to
work it out so that program like gnugo would be able to handle the fast
time control at their standard
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And yes, it slows down the play-outs. Still, the play-outs seem to
require a good bit of randomness - certainly they cannot be
deterministic and it seems difficult to find the general principles that
are important to the play-out policy.
Not all changes
I have been interested in monte-carlo approaches to Go since running
my first MC simulations in magnetic phase transitions when I was in
graduate school in the 1980's. What held me back, even when the latest
crop of MC programs started winning against older stronger programs
and my program
It is my opinion that 30 minutes per side is common for human tournament
games, and thus makes sense for 19x19 CGOS. I think 10 minutes is rather
restrictive, so maybe 20 minutes makes sense.
I'll change the time settings to what people want (I'll count the choices
on the mailing list and move
Then 15 minutes should be good. We want the anchor to play at the same
strength as before.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alain Baeckeroot
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:40 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re:
It was Doug Larson's idea. Something like:
Pull a single stone out of Atari once
Play in a liberty of the group with fewest liberties that has 5 or fewer
liberties
Play random
I also am thinking about building a really fast and weak playing bot.
Something that is similar to the rule based
I do not have a 19x19 bot right now. But I found that fast engines have to
wait for slow engines is kind of boring. For example, if a majority of
engines finish the game within 5 minutes and only one or two engines will
finish the games in 30 minutes. Then all the fast engines have to wait the
John Fan wrote:
I do not have a 19x19 bot right now. But I found that fast engines
have to wait for slow engines is kind of boring. For example, if a
majority of engines finish the game within 5 minutes and only one or
two engines will finish the games in 30 minutes. Then all the fast
David Fotland wrote:
It was Doug Larson's idea. Something like:
Pull a single stone out of Atari once
Play in a liberty of the group with fewest liberties that has 5 or fewer
liberties
Play random
Yes, and we called the player Lardo after Doug Larson - (LA)rson
(Do)ug.
I can't
I want the fast games to be fairly fast compared to the slow games -
even if we have to construct a different Anchor.
If GnuGo is the anchor, it will probably be ok if it's run on a fast
enough computer at 10 minutes.I hope.
- Don
David Fotland wrote:
Then 15 minutes should be good. We
That sounds like it would be weaker than Wally. You could just use Wally,
though, with today's hardware,?I doubt many would find it a challenging
opponent.
- Dave Hillis
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tue, 8 Jan
Down the road, when I'm ready for it, I'd like for there still to be a 19x19
CGOS much like the one now. But, in the mean time, the current 19x19 CGOS is of
no use at all in helping me get there. Ten minutes per side or faster would be
ideal. Don's plan for 2 speeds on the same server sounds
John Fan wrote:
I think they are slightly different unless I misunderstood yours. I
was thinking fixing the game time limit as now, 30 minutes per side.
But has a more flexible schedule. Just schedule the games for
available engines as the server normally would do as long as enough
engines
You can test your bot on the 19x19 cgos now, since I added 3 weak players
today. They are so fast they don’t load my machine, so I’ll leave them up.
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:42 PM
To:
Is anyone altering the playout policy during the course of a game? Is
seems like a huge potential win if done right (of course, I don't claim
to know how to do it right). If so, can you give any details?
___
computer-go mailing list
Yes, Largo. I have a version of this I can put on CGOS (and other's can
too so that we can check each other for bugs). I tried using Largo as a
component of a playout policy with no success.
I will also put a version of MoGo up (the version that was released to
the public).
David Fotland
hmm, what about the following schedule
1. Every minute, the server set up pairs randomly between all the engines,
including both busy ones and idle ones.
2. Start the games between only the pairs which both are currently idling.
For a pair, if either side is currently in a game, then the match
Is it true that the compiled cgos clients will not work for 19x19
because they do not accept a server and port as parameters? Could these
parameters be added and the binaries recompiled?
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Michael Williams wrote:
Yes, Largo. I have a version of this I can put on CGOS (and other's
can too so that we can check each other for bugs). I tried using
Largo as a component of a playout policy with no success.
It was Lardo, not Largo :-) Interesting idea using it as a
play-out
If the programs are all playing faster than 15 minutes, then there is no
problem, the server starts a new round as soon as the previous round
completes.Of course just 1 program can hold this up.
Did Olivier change the time control yet?
Someone should put Gnugo on there, and publish to
John Fan wrote:
hmm, what about the following schedule
1. Every minute, the server set up pairs randomly between all the
engines, including both busy ones and idle ones.
2. Start the games between only the pairs which both are currently
idling. For a pair, if either side is currently in a
I followed the instructions at
http://www.mail-archive.com/computer-go@computer-go.org/msg04946.html
and it appears that Largo connects (saw it in cgosview), but there is
some problem. I get zero feedback in the dos window that I start the
tcl script. Any ideas?
Michael Williams wrote:
Is it true that the compiled cgos clients will not work for 19x19
because they do not accept a server and port as parameters? Could
these parameters be added and the binaries recompiled?
Yes, you can easily do this yourself.Someone posted instructions on
this
Michael Williams wrote:
Yes, it's mine. It was me accidentally swapping Largo/Lardo again.
Does Largo try to do what my Lardo used to do, play according to Doug
Larsens rules?
I think you are right about the tclkit exe. I used the one that the
instruction page linked, which does throw
I finally found my version of Lardo with the source code.
I'll bet my Lardo can beat your Lardo :-)
- Don
Don Dailey wrote:
Michael Williams wrote:
Yes, it's mine. It was me accidentally swapping Largo/Lardo again.
Does Largo try to do what my Lardo used to do, play according
What is Largo? Is is a program of yours?
I am not very proficient with Windows, but some things to check:
1. Are you using a tclkit runtime?Do you have proper path to it set?
2. Try logging on with gnugo - then log off quickly.We known gnugo
works with it correctly.
3. Make
Largo is playing a game, it just hasn't made any moves. So it must
have logged on successfully at least.
What is Largo?
- Don
Michael Williams wrote:
I followed the instructions at
http://www.mail-archive.com/computer-go@computer-go.org/msg04946.html
and it appears that Largo connects
I think the server is wedged for 19x19. I hope Olivier can restart
it.
- Don
Michael Williams wrote:
I followed the instructions at
http://www.mail-archive.com/computer-go@computer-go.org/msg04946.html
and it appears that Largo connects (saw it in cgosview), but there is
some
Don Dailey wrote:
Michael Williams wrote:
Yes, it's mine. It was me accidentally swapping Largo/Lardo again.
Does Largo try to do what my Lardo used to do, play according to Doug
Larsens rules?
Yes. But like I said, I never meant to call it Largo. You will not see
Largo logged in
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
CGOS 19x19 is back.
Following current discussions,
I have temporary moved the time settings to 15 minutes and increased the
gift to 1s per move; when the discussion about time settings will be over, I'll
set the time settings that most people want.
Olivier
49 matches
Mail list logo
