Can Go be used to increase a person's aptitude.
Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Getting way off topic now.
On 1/16/07, Mike Olsson wrote:
> Another question that I would like to ask is what distinguishes a student at
> Harvard or at a top school from the rest of the students. And how can
Getting way off topic now.
On 1/16/07, Mike Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Another question that I would like to ask is what distinguishes a student at
Harvard or at a top school from the rest of the students. And how can one
develop the aptitude to reach that level. Or is it just that some p
Another question that I would like to ask is what distinguishes a student at
Harvard or at a top school from the rest of the students. And how can one
develop the aptitude to reach that level. Or is it just that some people are
born with a gift.
Eduardo Sabbatella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I
On 16, Jan 2007, at 5:45 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
For instance if there existed 2 dimensional beings, we could not show
them 3 dimensional objects,
The answers to this are in "Flatland: A romance of many dimensions" a
nice short book by E.A. Abbott.
just reflections of them
slices
and an
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 16:21 -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
> > One of the theoretical limitations to
> > computing power (which was layed out in someones posts) and I have
> > always understood to be the case, is related to
> > space - the physical size of the
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
One of the theoretical limitations to
computing power (which was layed out in someones posts) and I have
always understood to be the case, is related to
space - the physical size of the universe.
The problem with higher dimensions is that they are small AN
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 20:23 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> There is a good argument why 100 is ok.
> When You have about 50 children, then waiting 100 playouts before
> start of attaching them results only in 2 playouts per child loss, so
> I guess even higher threshold should be OK.
And I haven't bot
There is a good argument why 100 is ok.
When You have about 50 children, then waiting 100 playouts before
start of attaching them results only in 2 playouts per child loss, so
I guess even higher threshold should be OK.
Lukasz
On 1/16/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have been doing
I have been doing a lot of experiments with the scalability and
memory usage of UCT.I'm using the exact scheme that was
described like this in a previous posting by someone:
Here is a summary of how it works:
- Use probability of winning as score, not territory
- Use the average outcome a
I have the same IQ than Kasparov, He is millionarie
and famous and I'm a moron that have to spend almost
all his day coding for food.
This is a good proof that IQ tests do not work
:-P
--- Aidan Karley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
> Olsson
> wrote
I tried to finish simulation as soon as dead stone
difference was greather than a thresold but I got
worst result.
Its a totally preliminary. I tried that only one day.
I suppose because at the end of the day, the MC
simulation will try to fill all the board positions
with stones so almost every
You just can try few, and look whether the percentage of playout wins
doesn't change too much. You probably need more that one starting
position to test the rule.
Lukasz
On 1/15/07, George Dahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What should the mercy threshold be for other board sizes than 9 by 9,
part
12 matches
Mail list logo
