Re: [computer-go] A plan for building a 7x7 GO solver.

2006-10-14 Thread Don Dailey
answers. - Don Cheers, David On 12, Oct 2006, at 11:38 AM, Don Dailey wrote: 1 canonical position per 16 equivalent states. The actual number is less than 16. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer

Re: [computer-go] A plan for building a 7x7 GO solver.

2006-10-14 Thread Don Dailey
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 20:33 +, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote: The actual number of states that represent legal go position is smaller than that. Even more, I think there are legal positions that can be reached only by passing - these could also be skipped in a database, I think. I don't see how I

[computer-go] The equivalence of matter and energy.

2006-10-14 Thread Don Dailey
There is another technique that may be more effective that the one I have been considering for building a hybrid search/database solver. Suppose we used the same basic idea of building a function that can be given the veto by a bloom filter, but the function in question returns a best MOVE

Re: [computer-go] A plan for building a 7x7 GO solver.

2006-10-15 Thread Don Dailey
On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 12:40 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: Another question is how many illegal board configurations are there ... by assigning each point on the board a random state of (white,black,empty) That does not represent real game positions. All positions have about 7x7x2/3 = 33

Re: [computer-go] CGOS pairings using Christoph Birk formula

2006-10-16 Thread Don Dailey
When I have some free time and if Don is interested, I may run some simulations for the method I proposed and post some results. Don, please let me know whether your mind is made up already. I am pretty sure I will stick with my original idea now of just choosing the best of N random

[computer-go] CGOS server for 7x7

2006-10-17 Thread Don Dailey
I have a temporary server up for 7x7 CGOS thanks to Thomas Wolf who procured a machine for me to use. The following URL gives the status of the games: http://139.57.131.70:8015/7x7.html And you must fix up the client program to point to the correct server. A client that is ready to go is

Re: [computer-go] Strange games on CGOS

2006-10-21 Thread Don Dailey
In Game 334564, it's also not a server error - but it's an amazing superko. If 101. B g5 were allowed, then it would exactly match the position after 71. B e6. After 71. B e6 was played a huge black group was captured, then a huge white group was captured and yet history repeated itself. You

Re: [computer-go] Connecting to cgos failed

2006-10-22 Thread Don Dailey
There is no bug, the server was apparently rebooted last night. It's up and running now. - Don On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 12:14 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have failed connecting a bot to cgos. The error message is: server startup return code: 1 msg: couldn't open socket:

Re: [computer-go] When is Pass the best move?

2006-10-23 Thread Don Dailey
When someone mentioned a position where a pass-alive group should be sacrificed - I wondered if it was also due to PSK issues. I want to clarify something I said about PSK. I don't think the rule is wrong in any sense - after all you can make up any rules you want as long as they are internally

Re: [computer-go] When is Pass the best move?

2006-10-23 Thread Don Dailey
Let me address some of your points directly: ... In Go, the forbidden ko point is another piece of information you could add, being similar to en-passent capture possibilities in that it is only about what happened in the last move. You may well say 2 identical configuration - one with

Re: [computer-go] When is Pass the best move?

2006-10-23 Thread Don Dailey
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 16:01 -0200, Mark Boon wrote: On 23-okt-06, at 14:23, Don Dailey wrote: Then all the nonsense goes away. It then comes down to each player having his fate in his own hands.If you want to win, you will avoid cycles, That's a rather bizarre

Re: [computer-go] When is Pass the best move?

2006-10-23 Thread Don Dailey
: On 10/23/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not very good at GO, but I would assume that it would change the game some. But it would be a change that was adjusted to. Knowing how to avoid these situations would be part of a good players strategy. Some is an understatement

Re: [computer-go] Positions illustrative of computer stupidity ?

2006-11-22 Thread Don Dailey
I think it's all in the presentation. Even if they are not even beginners, with skill you can help them appreciate how some basic concepts are difficult for a computer. For instance, I think that you can teach the principle of 2 eyes with a very simple example perhaps involving just 1 point

Re: [computer-go] Positions illustrative of computer stupidity ?

2006-11-23 Thread Don Dailey
Sylvain, The improvement over a given opponent should be measured by ELO points, not win percentage unless you do the extra math. I cannot quite tell if you were considering that or not - if so then ignore this. Going from 50% wins to 60% with is a modest improvement, but going from 80% to 90%

Re: [computer-go] .. if Monte-Carlo programs would play infinite strong

2006-11-24 Thread Don Dailey
Richard, The key word is not infinite, it's the word if The statement was IF we had an infinite computer It doesn't matter one bit whether such a device is possible - it's a perfectly valid thought device for thought experiments.It's easy to imagine what we would do with such a

Re: [computer-go] .. if Monte-Carlo programs would play infinite strong

2006-11-24 Thread Don Dailey
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 13:38 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote: on a practical note, i think that MC is a great idea for 9x9, and might even be a great idea as a subset of a larger piece of code that employs human knowledge, but that MC will never beat a decent human at 19x19. the time/space

Re: [computer-go] .. if Monte-Carlo programs would play infinite strong

2006-11-25 Thread Don Dailey
Yes, I agree with the point you are making. Random play is a relatively good evaluator, but it is not a great evaluator. And it's very weak at tactics. Letting it do a lot of simulations does not cause it converge to the correct value. But the current breed of MC computer players do not have

Re: [computer-go] .. if Monte-Carlo programs would play infinitestrong

2006-11-27 Thread Don Dailey
A good point to consider - is God actively trying to confuse his opponent and complicate things, or is he simply playing objectively best moves? - Don On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 07:39 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote: wow. i thought that there were at least two stones worth of slack in the opening,

Re: [computer-go] .. if Monte-Carlo programs would play infinitestrong

2006-11-27 Thread Don Dailey
I've often wondered how I would program a computer to play a game, chess or go, if I had perfect information about the game.How do you make it more difficult to win against a fallible opponent? I assume that in many positions there are more than 1 maximizing move. I would of course restrict

Re: [computer-go] .. if Monte-Carlo programs would play infinitestrong

2006-11-27 Thread Don Dailey
A good devil tries to win by MORE than he deserves and will try to win in a losing position. I have heard this terminology before and my understanding was that a devil still plays a perfect game, he just tries to be deceptive about it. I don't see any point in not playing perfect if you can

Re: [computer-go] Making Java much faster

2006-11-29 Thread Don Dailey
The thing about java is that it seems to be a big memory pig. I can't have multiple java processes running without suddenly getting a lot of memory thrashing. If I do things in C, everything screams.I always figured this is a problem with java that will be solved - but to this day it

Re: [computer-go] Making Java much faster

2006-11-30 Thread Don Dailey
Hi Jim, I feel similarly to you. I have to take exception to what someone posted earlier - Java keeps getting presented as some kind of high level language than enables a natural expression of ideas. This is total garbage. Java is a low level language and very much a C dialect. I don't

Re: [computer-go] Making Java much faster

2006-11-30 Thread Don Dailey
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 21:26 +0100, Chrilly wrote: I believe that MC will be the only way to write a GO program in the near future leaving the other stuff in the dust (like Mogo has with 9x9 Monte Carlo Go.)This happened in computer chess several times, someone came up with some

Re: [computer-go] Monte-Carlo is the future of 19x19

2006-11-30 Thread Don Dailey
No, you can't test it that way. The thing with monte carlo is the discovery and then very rapid progress of it. Even 2 years ago they were not very good compared to what they are now.I haven't seen that in My statement was about a way forward - I'm not saying they are currently much

RE: [computer-go] Monte-Carlo is the future of 19x19

2006-11-30 Thread Don Dailey
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 18:40 -0800, David Fotland wrote: How does monte carlo go do with fights that are trivial to evaluate, but hard to search? It's easy to construct problems that any program cannot handle including yours. You have to understand that Monte Carlo is not great at tactics,

RE: [spam probable] Re: [computer-go] Monte-Carlo is the future of19x19

2006-12-01 Thread Don Dailey
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 08:39 -0800, David Fotland wrote: What's included in an evaluation? Is each evaluation one random game, or a set of random games that gives good enough statistics about the value of a position? When you say random it conjures up images of aimless wandering - but the monte

RE: [computer-go] Monte-Carlo is the future of 19x19

2006-12-02 Thread Don Dailey
Hi David, Since I made my last post to you, several people have responded. They have made my point and I agree with your point. It's foolish not to take advantage of domain specific information and nothing prevents a monte carlo program from doing that as you can see. Having said that, I

[computer-go] language choices

2006-12-03 Thread Don Dailey
Since we have been talking about programming language recently, I was curious as to whether anyone on this group has experimented with the digital mars D programming language? From the hype on the web page, it looks an extremely capable programming language that is supposed to be fast native code

Re: [computer-go] language choices

2006-12-04 Thread Don Dailey
be grateful to see direct performance comparison on MC Go program (or on anything else) http://www.agner.org/ BTW Does anybody know what is the performance of the native compiled C# ? Best Regards, Lukasz On 12/4/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since we have been talking

Re: [computer-go] Re: language choices

2006-12-04 Thread Don Dailey
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 12:15 -0800, Dave Dyer wrote: Guys, keep your eyes on the prize. If your only problem is that you need to double your speed, all you have to do is wait 1.5 years. All this talk of optimizing speed by tweaking language xx to be more like assembly language (or C) is

Re: [computer-go] language choices

2006-12-05 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 20:40 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 09:51 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote: I'll bet Mogo would give a dan level player fits at 9x9 if 1 week of thinking time per move could be compressed enough to play a 30 minute game. you could

Re: [computer-go] language choices

2006-12-05 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 21:15 +0100, John Tromp wrote: On 12/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How long would it take Mogo to fill up 16GB of memory on a quad core opteron machine? It depends on the speed of your opteron :).

Re: [computer-go] KGS Computer Go Tournaments

2006-12-05 Thread Don Dailey
Nick, I would love to see such a tournament, but the UCT programs could not take full advantage of the extra time. As you see, we run out of memory after a minute or two! - Don On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 20:48 +, Nick Wedd wrote: Jason: Thank you for pointing out these errors. I have

Re: [computer-go] language choices

2006-12-05 Thread Don Dailey
Sylvain, You can extend this pretty easily by doing 2 or more simulations at a time. The trade-off is very good for doing this although not 100%.I HAVE to do this for Lazarus because I have very little memory in my machine. I believe I'm doing 8 simulations at a time in order to use about

Re: [computer-go] language choices

2006-12-05 Thread Don Dailey
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 00:04 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So that I can follow this discussion, how would be the kgs level of this player (it is the only level I have access to when looking at the results of game)? Wouldn't it be 1 dan on KGS? I don't know because some seem to say

Re: [computer-go] How to improve Orego

2006-12-07 Thread Don Dailey
intersection in the vector starting from the place I finished last time. I hope this is clear now. If not, just ask :) Lukasz Lew On 12/6/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 18:32 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote: I deal with eyes by randomizing list of empty

[computer-go] Breaking news on randint!

2006-12-07 Thread Don Dailey
found a previous bug.) So it appears that D is perfectly usable as a very fast compiled programming language, at least as compared to gcc with all the optimizations I know to do. - Don On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 12:28 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: In fact, I just wrapped this up into my Mersenne

Re: Threads (was Re: [computer-go] experiments with D programming)

2006-12-07 Thread Don Dailey
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 10:24 -0800, Peter Drake wrote: Got it -- now I'm getting just under 10,000 games per second! Whee! Hold on, I thought the non-threaded version was doing 5,000? What exactly did you change? Or are you just using 2 processors more efficiently to get 10,000 games? - Don

Re: [computer-go] How to improve Orego

2006-12-07 Thread Don Dailey
I'm pretty sure the time of this function is dominated by the call to rand(), but it never occurred to do a table lookup for the mask, interesting idea. - Don On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 22:36 +0100, Antoine de Maricourt wrote: If this randint routine is critical, you can save some calls to rand()

Re: [computer-go] How to improve Orego

2006-12-07 Thread Don Dailey
By the way, I'm amazed that the code for playing random games is fast enough that getting random numbers is actually a bottleneck and it's worthy of a discussion on optimization. One of the fastest chess programs a few years ago in terms of nodes per second was Fritz. It heavily used a common

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS?

2006-12-12 Thread Don Dailey
trying to encourage the development of new techniques and idea and particularly Monte Carlo although all programs are welcome. So I'm leaning towards 30 minute games at 19x19 but I'm still listening to feedback. - Don On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 08:05 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: You anticipated my

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS?

2006-12-12 Thread Don Dailey
What happens in March? Or are you suggesting that we do 13x13 until March? - Don On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 17:54 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote: I vote for 13x13 with 15 minutes. 19x19 , 30 minutes , in march. Lukasz Lew On 12/12/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a few proposals

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-13 Thread Don Dailey
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

Re: [computer-go] Fast Board implementation

2006-12-15 Thread Don Dailey
O X group have 4 pseudo liberties. If You merge two groups just add pseudo liberties. If PL = 0 then group should be removed. This is simple and sufficient :) Lukasz On 12/11/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 18:22 +0100

Re: [computer-go] Fast Board implementation

2006-12-15 Thread Don Dailey
On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:47 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote: On 12/16/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another report on D programming. It appears that D programs are about 1.5X slower in general - at least for what I'm doing. At one point I reported about 7% slower

Re: [computer-go] Fast Board implementation

2006-12-15 Thread Don Dailey
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 16:28 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote: I should be able to get close to 25,000 games per second if I get the 1.5 X improvement going to C. This is only about 3K of code that will have to be written in C, where much of the code is identical to C anyway. is

Re: [computer-go] Slow KGS computer Go Tournament

2006-12-17 Thread Don Dailey
Here is a config file that MAY work for the tournament - at least I don't get obvious errors -[ snip ]- engine=/home/drd/Games/KGS/botexp verbose=f server.host=goserver.gokgs.com server.port=2379 name=botnoid password=xx room=Computer Go mode=tournament talk=I

Re: [computer-go] Slow KGS computer Go Tournament

2006-12-18 Thread Don Dailey
William, One question - My opponent in the first round somehow got disconnected. A few minutes later botnoid was kicked from the game. What would happen if my opponent came back? Would botnoid automatically rejoin the game or would it now be botnoid that would lose on time? There

RE: [computer-go] Fast Board implementation

2006-12-19 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 02:21 -0500, House, Jason J. wrote: On the down side, I noticed a significant lack of documentation and difficult to find get it at my fingertips. Yes, I had this problem too - you do have to do a lot of digging to figure out some things. I actually had quite a bit of

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-22 Thread Don Dailey
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 15:33 +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote: 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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-22 Thread Don Dailey
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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-22 Thread Don Dailey
to the score? - Don On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 17:25 +0100, Rémi Coulom wrote: 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

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-22 Thread Don Dailey
I think as a test, I would go with the full handicap system, I would just refuse to match players that need more than 9 stones. I can always cut it back to 4 or 6 later. Why don't we view it as an experiment to gather a lot of statistics. I can change back to ELO later. The only question, and

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-22 Thread Don Dailey
Ok, Well I'm inclined to go with the majority which seems to have turned around from the last time I polled. Now the question: How to set it up? Here are the options: 1. Use GTP handicap commands to set up game. 2. Send the appropriate pass commands to get the initial setup to

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-22 Thread Don Dailey
, if at all? Check http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#comp if you don't know what I'm talking about.. //Christian On 12/22/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, Well I'm inclined to go with the majority which seems to have turned around from the last time I polled. Now

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-22 Thread Don Dailey
. I don't plan to add compensation for the handicap stones. - Don On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 16:01 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: I'm glad you bring it up. From the same site, it appears there is no standard way of handling this. I will look to see what Tromp/Taylor says if anything. It would

Re: C const (RE: [computer-go] Fast Board implementation)

2006-12-23 Thread Don Dailey
that do_something() might have changed the value in the array (e.g. from 'a' to 'b'). So, the compiler *must* reload the value from the array again -- another memory reference. Edmund. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Don Dailey Sent: 19

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-23 Thread Don Dailey
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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-23 Thread Don Dailey
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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-23 Thread Don Dailey
to fake handicap - there is already GTP command in place for that. Will have to slightly extend the CGOS client to handle it though. Will make a web page that clearly explains how everything works. - Don On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 22:37 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote: Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-24 Thread Don Dailey
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-25 Thread Don Dailey
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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-25 Thread Don Dailey
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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

2006-12-25 Thread Don Dailey
, or the bottom players need to be closer in rating than 100 points. - Don On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 20:23 +0100, Andrés Domínguez wrote: 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

Re: [computer-go] 2007 KGS bot tournament schedule

2006-12-27 Thread Don Dailey
Hi Sylvain, Do you think it would be useful to add 1/2 second for CGOS games? I have long considered doing that. I would still consider it fixed time games - I would just silently add 1/2 second to the clock for each move as a kind of internal benefit of the doubt factor - it's clear that some

Re: [computer-go] Interesting problem

2006-12-27 Thread Don Dailey
It turns out that I did not turn off all of the stuff that strengthened the random player - so hopefully I have much weaker players now. (There was a bug that made the program too strong :-) - Don On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 21:34 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: I'm having an interesting problem - my hope

Re: [computer-go] Interesting problem

2006-12-27 Thread Don Dailey
Can you send me an attachment with the 19x19 data in a text file? I will try a version for the 19x19 games and see what happens. - Don On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 23:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll post a 19x19 version if anyone is interested, but the lines will wrap around...

Re: [computer-go] Interesting problem

2006-12-27 Thread Don Dailey
Thanks Dave, - Don On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 23:50 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: File attached. And also inline below Dave Hillis antminder on KGS ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org

RE: [computer-go] Fw: Compensation for handicap plays?

2006-12-28 Thread Don Dailey
There are 3 gtp commands for handling this: fixed_handicap place_free_handicap set_free_handicap You are arguing that fixed_handicap, even though it's quite explicit, is the wrong one to use in this situation? set_free_handicap would also work - the server just specifies the points and

Re: [computer-go] Fw: Compensation for handicap plays?

2006-12-28 Thread Don Dailey
this discussion before, but there appears to be no concise way to state the rules with the myriads of variations they entail. - Don On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 01:57 +0100, John Tromp wrote: On 12/28/06, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to be precise: KGS does option 2 if you select

Re: [computer-go] Fw: Compensation for handicap plays?

2006-12-29 Thread Don Dailey
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 15:28 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote: The handicaps are set up in a way that white passes between Black's moves. Ie. he gives one point to the black N-1 times. This isn't elegant. The stones work out nicely as you say, but after a pass move the opponent has a right to pass

RE: [computer-go] Fw: Compensation for handicap plays?

2006-12-29 Thread Don Dailey
I'm considering this proposal to rate handicaps separately, still haven't decided but it's appealing. My plan was to simply use the same scheduling algorithm I currently use. I would take the weaker base player and see if handicap versions of himself more closely matches the ELO rating needed to

Re: [computer-go] Fw: Compensation for handicap plays?

2006-12-29 Thread Don Dailey
I agree with you. Weston's post convinced me that the program should know in advance what the handicap is to be and thus sending consecutive genmove commands is not really correct technically speaking. I don't like implied compensation, but apparently it is popular and KGS does it. However,

Re: [computer-go] Interesting problem

2006-12-30 Thread Don Dailey
On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 13:52 +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: Aloril wrote: Actually given *enough* games fully random including eye filling and passing moves will win against a pro player. That is true, at least as it is true that a monkey would write Hamlet typing at random long

Re: [computer-go] Re: computer-go Digest, Vol 29, Issue 29

2006-12-30 Thread Don Dailey
On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 14:32 +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: Lukasz Lew wrote: The unification needs that *pass* costs one point. And this is only modification needed. Passing when a game is finished is the only Kami No Itte move we, the mortals, can play. Probably, all our other moves

Re: [computer-go] Strongest 9x9 programm?

2007-01-01 Thread Don Dailey
Are we to assume that Size is starting to get good at 9x9 and can beat Gnugo consistently? - Don On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 13:14 +0100, Chrilly wrote: For testing Suzie on 9x9 we (Peter Woitke and Chrilly) use Gnu-Go Level 16. Is there something stronger around /available? Y

Re: [computer-go] Strongest 9x9 programm?

2007-01-01 Thread Don Dailey
Yes, where is Suzie? Seriously, CGOS tries to be programmer friendly and will be improved to be more so. Unfortunately you will not always get a tough opponent, but this is impossible with an open server. However CGOS tries hard to keep the opponents paired up fairly closely and you will

Re: [computer-go] Sho-Dan-level at 9x9

2007-01-01 Thread Don Dailey
Hi Chrilly, I find it pretty amazing that even a little money will inspire people to play a computer who wouldn't otherwise. Many years ago my old chess programs were welcome at tournaments, but as soon as players started losing, the program wore out it's welcome! The change was like night and

Re: [computer-go] Time handling on CGOS

2007-01-01 Thread Don Dailey
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 19:06 +0100, Urban Hafner wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hej, I figured I'd ask my question about CGOS here as the documentation is said to be out of date. My question is: Does CGOS do the time handling like KGS, i.e. send a time_left

Re: [computer-go] Time handling on CGOS

2007-01-01 Thread Don Dailey
on the time the server thinks you spent. - Don On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 13:18 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: In the near future I'm going to silently add in a fudge factor to each move. It's been brought to my attention that even if a program plays instantly, it will lose a significant amount of time

Re: [computer-go] UCT vs MC

2007-01-01 Thread Don Dailey
I seem to remember someone on this group a couple of years ago or so saying that there won't be a 1 Dan 9x9 player anytime soon. I don't remember the exact quote or who said it. I'm looking through the archives but I can't find it. I would not name the person even when I do, but it gives me

Re: [computer-go] UCT vs MC

2007-01-01 Thread Don Dailey
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:10 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious about the full width depth and the principal variation depth to compare UCT wilth alpha-beta. The comparison is not so easy to do I think, because using MC as an evaluation function for alpha beta, you have to do

Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

2007-01-01 Thread Don Dailey
Hi Jacques, I think Chinese should be universally adapted, but before you flame me I'll tell you why. I know of players who thought Go might be an interesting game, but gave up quickly when they realized they could never play by Japanese rules. Even though they eventually could have learned

Re: [computer-go] Sho-Dan-level at 9x9

2007-01-03 Thread Don Dailey
This is exactly how Cilkchess used to compete. Your ran a gui locally on your laptop which connected to the program (running in a different part of the world) via stdin and stdout - via an ssh connection. That's what I've always loved about unix - everything is a nice abstraction. You normally

Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

2007-01-03 Thread Don Dailey
. It is required that all programs agree when scoring games. At least: *when* nothing more can be won and what is *alive* and what is not at that moment. and On 1, Jan 2007, at 1:08 PM, Don Dailey wrote: By far, Chinese is more intuitive and natural. Japanese rules are based on some very non

Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

2007-01-03 Thread Don Dailey
. I think our only real disagreement is when and where we raise the bar. I think we could do it very soon in public tournaments. Cheers, David On 3, Jan 2007, at 1:55 PM, Don Dailey wrote: I think this all comes down to pretty much one concept - Chinese is more forgiving

Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

2007-01-04 Thread Don Dailey
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 08:01 +, Tom Cooper wrote: At 23:17 03/01/2007, Don wrote: David, I thought of another way to put it which I think, in a way, defines the difference in the rule-sets. You are playing a game, and you think the opponent group is dead. But you are not 100

Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

2007-01-04 Thread Don Dailey
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:53 -0800, David Doshay wrote: On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote: Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not require answer, the more skilled player i.e

Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

2007-01-04 Thread Don Dailey
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:16 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly. I hope the programming effort isn't spend on this mundane stuff, but instead is applied to playing the game

Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

2007-01-04 Thread Don Dailey
seems like a tedious unimportant exercise that at best will give you a stone or two if you have a reasonable program. - Don On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 16:46 -0500, Chris Fant wrote: Kinda like how the discussion is on this mundane stuff instead of the interesting stuff? On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL

Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

2007-01-04 Thread Don Dailey
stuff? On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:16 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly. I hope the programming effort isn't spend

Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

2007-01-04 Thread Don Dailey
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 23:28 +0100, Erik van der Werf wrote: Chinese scoring != Chinese rules Japanese scoring != Japanese rules So you can play with Chinese rules, but score the Japanese way? Please explain the difference so that I can use the correct terminology. - Don

Re: [computer-go] Allocating remaining time

2007-01-04 Thread Don Dailey
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 22:04 -0800, Peter Drake wrote: How much time should a program spend on each move? If my program has t milliseconds left to use in a game, and there are an estimated m moves left on the board (e.g., this many vacant spaces), one reasonable choice is t / m.

Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

2007-01-04 Thread Don Dailey
Ok, since you broke the truce so will I :-) On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:55 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I guess we will just have to leave it as a disagreement about what is important and what is mundane. I do not find the question of correct endgame reading to be mundane. What does this have to

Re: [computer-go] Allocating remaining time

2007-01-08 Thread Don Dailey
My program does this to an extent - it's time control is based on an aggressive percentage of the remaining time but it is modified by other factors. It has the interesting characteristic that it can get into time trouble! I think a really good time control must get into trouble once in a

Re: [computer-go] January KGS bot tournament results

2007-01-08 Thread Don Dailey
Let me get this straight. I think you are saying that IdiotBot actually knew the stones were dead and correctly said so. But HouseBot didn't speak up for itself nor did it bother to capture the dead stones and the only way for the server to resolve this is to assume everything is alive. I

Re: [computer-go] January KGS bot tournament results

2007-01-08 Thread Don Dailey
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 17:43 +, Nick Wedd wrote: I like the protocol, because you don't have to implement it, but if you don't you should clean up opponents dead stones before passing. I like it too. But bots which fail to support it will continue to lose games as a consequence. But

Re: [computer-go] January KGS bot tournament results

2007-01-08 Thread Don Dailey
What I meant to say is that it's ok to NOT support the protocol and you would NEVER lose a game you should have won AS LONG AS your program makes sure to eat all the opponents dead groups before passing. Am I correct in this understanding? - Don On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 12:59 -0500, Don Dailey

RE: [computer-go] January KGS bot tournament results

2007-01-09 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 09:03 +0100, Edward de Grijs wrote: I do not want to start the rules/scoring discussion again, but I want to know if the kgs-genmove_cleanup command which results in playing inside your own territory, can be used with Japanese rules/scoring. It seems to me that this

Re: [computer-go] Useless moves in the endgame

2007-01-09 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 16:31 +0100, Benjamin Teuber wrote: I just lost my first game against MoGo on KGS, 9x9, 0.5 komi, I was white. Impressing! But as a human, you don't like the useless endgame-moves MC-programs play against you when they know they win anyways. In order to make these

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >