To be honest, it seems very ugly to me but it seems to be what the
majority
like.
Apparently KGS handles it this way, the program just has to magically
know what the compensation is. But that's true of any handicap system,
the program has to have the correct understanding.
I think we had this
On 12/28/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to be precise: KGS does option 2 if you select chinese rules, and
> it also does option 1 when you select AGA rules.
And to be more precise, here is how it might work:
Handicap
0- komi is 7.5 and either player pl
Le jeudi 28 décembre 2006 18:47, Don Dailey a écrit :
> Yes,
>
> Someone mentioned random as being infinitely weak but there is no
> such thing.Resigning on the first move is as weak as you can
> get.
>
> The random player isn't really random, it doesn't fill it's eyes.
> There are strategies
>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
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 tel
> And your programs must be set up to "just understand this" if it
> matters.
> ...
> it will know where to put the
> stones initially,
I disagree with this portion. One of the handicap options has the
server explicitly tell the client where to put the handicap stones.
For the sanity of everyone,
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 15:36 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
>
> And to be more precise, here is how it might work:
>
> Handicap
>
> 0- komi is 7.5 and either player plays black.
> 1- komi is 0.5 and weaker player plays black.
> 2- komi is 0.5, weaker player g
>And to be more precise, here is how it might work:
>
> Handicap
>
> 0- komi is 7.5 and either player plays black.
> 1- komi is 0.5 and weaker player plays black.
> 2- komi is 0.5, weaker player gets black, white gets
>2 points.
> 3- komi is 0.5,
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 16:32 +0100, nando wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Urban Hafner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Yes,
Someone mentioned random as being infinitely weak but there is no
such thing.Resigning on the first move is as weak as you can
get.
The random player isn't really random, it doesn't fill it's eyes.
There are strategies to play MUCH worse than random as you
point out.
I don't believe the
I don't think it is possible to determine the weakest possible level. One could make a program that plays much worse than random. It would for instance rather fill its eyes than pass. I don't think any handicap will be enough to allow such a player to win. Especially when the (human) opponent kno
On 12/28/06, Urban Hafner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 22:53 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> 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
Addendum:
However, there st
>> One question I have - is compensation normally given in the 1 stone
>> case?
>
>I believe, no.
>
>> Also, in the case of NO handicap, what komi is normally
>given in 19x19
>> Chinese? 6.5, 7.5 ???
>
>It's 7.5
As best I understand it, a "one stone" game is actually normal play
without k
sorry, i just realized how out of context that was.
in response to "X is 50kyu, Y is 300kyu", etc.
30kyu is a good bottom end. the bottom has to be
somewhere, and 30kyu humans are easily beaten by
most anything stronger than random play. more than
39 levels is asking quite a bit of the ranking
anyone
who plays by the rules qualifies as 30kyu.
s.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@comp
Markus Enzenberger wrote:
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?
I like that !! It would give very valuable informat
>> 2. Give white N stones at end of game. (N = handicap)
I vote for 2.
But my reason is that 2 is the closest to some future international Go rules.
I.e it allows for smooth integration of area and territory scoring.
Łukasz
On 12/28/06, Urban Hafner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN
Le jeudi 28 décembre 2006 03:34, Don Dailey a écrit :
> 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.
Hmm maybe i misunderstand. It seems to me that a random player
cannot have a fixed rating (except -i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 28, 2006, at 10:28 , Rémi Coulom wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
I'll take a final poll - speak now or forever hold your peace!
Should we:
1. Give white N-1 stones at end of game. (where N = handicap)
2. Give white N stones at end of game
Hi Don,
adding silently 0.5 second per move to the clock seems a good idea and simple
enough. In 9x9 10 minutes, the communication time is not really a problem as
you can take 30 s security and games are quite short, but for 19x19 it can be
important. Of course in a 1 minute game, you can't tak
Don Dailey wrote:
I'll take a final poll - speak now or forever hold your peace!
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
This is an interesting problem. It seems to me that the reality is that
when you are talking about non-ideal play, ranking systems aren't linear.
Program A could beat B which could beat C which could beat A. How would you
rank those? Clearly there is going to have to be some degree of arbitrary
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 21:34 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> 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 an
I haven't really paid much attention to the previous few emails, but
if it is an effort at making a weak player (as the thread started
out), I shouldn't have to. Why not just randomly chose (with a
programmable distribution) between making a move based on a simulation
and a completely random move
2006/12/26, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There are many other ways to take advantage of your opponent in
chess that I consider sound if applied in a very measured and
careful way. None of them call for making truly unsound moves,
especially when you consider that in a losing position, all mo
26 matches
Mail list logo
