But not all of those are final (often dead stones remain on board).
But one eye seki is an answer for me.
Thanks,
Lukasz
On 12/27/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I extracted all the games from one month and uniq'd them, it looks
like
all results are possible:
Forfeit B+
Forfeit
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 19:16 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> This is a mess. I'll need to make a decision soon as I'm already
> testing the 19x19 server - getting some baseline data so that I
> can then estimate the proper handicap assignments.
>
> I don't know if this will be an issue for many pr
A more detailed version.
1| 208 110 63 89 93 104 106 98 117 139 117 98 106 104
93 89 63 110 208
2| 110 18868 12 17 17 22 39 22 17 17 12
868 18 110
3| 638...26645
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
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/
File attached. And also inline below
Dave Hillis
antminder on KGS
1| 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
21 21 21 21 21
2| 21 18868 12 17 17 21 21 21 17 17 12
868 18 21
3| 218.
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...
_
Here is a way to make a slightly smarter (and much prettier) random
player. It is good for MC playout games too. For the first 20 or so plys,
restrict the board spaces that can be filled to those commonly seen in human
games.
Below is a table for 9x9 games (trained from SGF files)
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
I'm having an interesting problem - my hope is to set
a random legal move making player (who doesn't fill
1 point eyes) at ELO zero.
I feel this would define a nice standard that is
easy to reproduce and verify experimentally and
at least would be a known quantity even 100 years
from now.
B
Actually, 1 program would have at most 10 entries if I allow
up to 9 handicap stones.
Unless I also rated each program's performance taking and giving
the handicap! But this seems foolish.
- Don
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 20:58 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> This is definitely an interesting idea.
This is definitely an interesting idea.If I were to do something
like this
I think I would want to have separate display pages for each program,
otherwise
you might have 10-20 entries for a single program!
It would require quite a bit of reworking of the server.
Let me think about this a bit.
would it make sense to treat players with handicap as completely different
players? For example, GNU Go giving one handicap stone would be a different
player and get a rating independent of GNU Go in an even game?
Then there is no problem about how to shoehorn handicap into the ELO system.
It w
Don Dailey wrote:
Should we:
1. Give white N-1 stones at end of game. (where N = handicap)
2. Give white N stones at end of game. (N = handicap)
3. Give white N stones except handicap 1 case.
4. Not worry about giving white anything but the appropriate
handicap stones.
Opti
This is a mess. I'll need to make a decision soon as I'm already
testing the 19x19 server - getting some baseline data so that I
can then estimate the proper handicap assignments.
I don't know if this will be an issue for many programs, but the
Monte Carlo programs will have to figure it co
Here's John Tromp's reply: he does not specify compensation for handicap stones
- but leaves wiggle room for the players to choose such komi as they wish.
- Forwarded Message
From: John Tromp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: terry mcintyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 4
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 t
Hi Sylvain,
Perhaps the duration of the game could be x minutes for the game+1 second per
move to take into account the communication time?
I think this is a good idea.
My reason for using absolute time is that I want to be sure of keeping
to schedule. If a game overruns, the KGS tournament
I extracted all the games from one month and uniq'd them, it looks
like
all results are possible:
Forfeit B+
Forfeit W+
Illegal B+
Illegal W+
Resign B+
Resign W+
Time B+
Time W+
0.5 B+
0.5 W+
1.5 B+
1.5 W+
2.5 B+
2.5 W+
3.5 B+
3.5 W+
4.5 B+
4.5 W+
5.5 B+
5.5
Hi Nick,
> I plan to hold another Slow tournament, once the KGS "five-minute rule"
> but has been fixed.
Good idea, this tournament have been popular.
> I am also considering having a Fast tournament, with maybe a minute each
> for 9x9, or four minutes each for 19x19. Would there be interest in
I have posted a schedule for KGS Computer Go tournaments in 2007.
It should (at present) be regarded as provisional. If anyone really
wants one of these dates changed, they can let me know - I may or may
not be willing to change it.
I plan to hold another Slow tournament, once the KGS "five-
On 12/27/06, nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
> Normal seki gives two neutral points, so it doesn't matter.
Two one-eyed groups sharing one dame are another common form
of seki, and these give you the sought one point difference.
-John
On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
Normal seki gives two neutral points, so it doesn't matter.
I'm walking on increasingly thin ice (for me), but you're right,
"normal" sekis shouldn't change things. Though, there are also beasts
like this one:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?pat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 27, 2006, at 14:56 , Łukasz Lew wrote:
I believe there is, yes (that's what I was hinting at with "almost").
There must be a seki somewhere on the board though.
Normal seki gives two neutral points, so it doesn't matter.
Doesn't CGOS con
On 12/27/06, nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree :)
> What I wanted to ask is:
> Does there exists two final (no profitable move left) 9x9 board
> positions that their area score differ by one point ?
Ah, sorry :)
I believe there is, yes
On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree :)
What I wanted to ask is:
Does there exists two final (no profitable move left) 9x9 board
positions that their area score differ by one point ?
Ah, sorry :)
I believe there is, yes (that's what I was hinting at with "almost").
There
On 12/27/06, nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
> >
> > It's 7.5
>
> Is there a difference?
> I.e. Have You seen a situation where the result is W+(even number)
> (on Chinese/CGOS rules) ?
In chinese rules (or AGA), there's (almost) no diffe
On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
>
> It's 7.5
Is there a difference?
I.e. Have You seen a situation where the result is W+(even number)
(on Chinese/CGOS rules) ?
In chinese rules (or AGA), there's (almost) no difference between 5.5
and 6.5 or between 7.5 and 8.5. Curren
On 12/26/06, nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/26/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, that's my plan.I'm going to use fixed handicap and 1 stone
> compensation per handicap stone.
>
> One question I have - is compensation normally given in the 1 stone
> case?
I believe, no.
28 matches
Mail list logo
