Don Dailey wrote:
I was looking at many of the posts on the threads about how things
scale with humans and computers and I'm trying to reconcile many of
the various opinions and intuitions. I think there were many
legitimate points brought up that I appeared to be brushing off.
In computations
I have confirmed that the version of the article in the printed copy
of The Economist (North American edition) is identical to the online
edition. There is no author listed.
On Jan 29, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Peter Drake wrote:
The author is presumably Chris Lydgate, who interviewed me on this.
Peter Drake wrote:
The author is presumably Chris Lydgate, who interviewed me on this.
(Did he interview other people on this list.)
He asked about my experience playing against Mogo, as I mentioned my
losses here - but he didn't react to my answer, which seems a bit
strange to me.
It's intere
The February 2007 KGS computer Go tournament will be next Sunday,
February 4th, in the Asian evening, European morning and American night,
starting at 09:00 UTC and ending at about 12:00 UTC.
The Formal division will be six-round Swiss, and use 13x13 boards with
13 minutes sudden death, Chines
The author is presumably Chris Lydgate, who interviewed me on this.
(Did he interview other people on this list.)
I was hoping to be quoted in the Economist. Oh, well. :-)
Peter Drake
Assistant Professor of Computer Science
Lewis & Clark College
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Jan 29, 20
Hello,
>> It is ranked 2,323rd in the world and in Europe's top 300.
> I have no idea where these numbers come from and what they mean... :-?
you mean you don't know your own world 9x9 ranking?!?
for shame!
Hum,
2323 ELO becomes 2,323rd in the world? Then the highest ELO you have
the lower r
2007/1/29, Erik S. Steinmetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The web edition does not list an author (though presumably one could
inquire with their Science and Technology editor). I will get my
print edition today, if the mail is timely, and will see if they list
the author there.
I think I know who the a
The web edition does not list an author (though presumably one could
inquire with their Science and Technology editor). I will get my
print edition today, if the mail is timely, and will see if they list
the author there.
The web edition also links to your page at:
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly
>> It is ranked 2,323rd in the world and in Europe's top 300.
> I have no idea where these numbers come from and what they mean... :-?
you mean you don't know your own world 9x9 ranking?!?
for shame!
s.
It is ranked 2,323rd in the world and in Europe's top 300.
I have no idea where these numbers come from and what they mean... :-?
Sylvain
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
I don't think I'm violating my terms of use by quoting only part of
the article, so here are the concluding paragraphs, after spending
over half the article explaining that computer go is difficult:
In the past two decades researchers have explored several alternative
strategies, from neu
I believe that there is an article on computer Go in the current
(January 27th) issue of The Economist. I haven't actually seen it, I
shall go out and buy a copy tomorrow.
If you have an online subscription you can, I suppose, read it at
http://www.economist.com/search/search.cfm?rv=2&qr=Mogo&
Well, Amen!
To add a few supporting items to Don's recent description of Go-playing ability
and intransitivity -- browsing xmp.senseis.net shows that many players have
similar experiences when playing Go. The vocabulary to define different aspects
of Go knowledge is vast - joseki, fuseki, middl
I completely agree with everything you have said. I would also just add
that one thing humans learn to do, is to stear the game into zones where
they play better. When facing a computer opponent, this generally means
stearing the game into positions where "judgement" is a much larger factor.
Com
I was looking at many of the posts on the threads about
how things scale with humans and computers and I'm
trying to reconcile many of the various opinions and
intuitions. I think there were many legitimate points
brought up that I appeared to be brushing off.
In computations done by computer, th
Steve Uurtamo is helping me with this, he has access to several
computers he is
throwing at the study.
But another fast computer wouldn't hurt. We have to coordinate
with Steve because I don't know what he is running. If you want
to help I will send you a tarball with everything you need.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 05:13:44PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> With help from other I will extend this as
> much as possible to much higher levels. Someone
> is helping me run games even now as I write
> this at higher levels - but the rate of play is
> quite slow, so it will be some time until we
So far, each doubling has produced extremely lopsided
scores in 19x19 Go. In fact, the superiority of the
higher level has increased with each doubling - but
I think that is a temporary phenomenon that will
eventually turn around. I think this also happened
in 9x9 go at really low levels.
On 1/29/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't understand what you are saying here.
Here is what I THINK you are saying ...
simple MC with all as first beats "standard" UCT at
19x19 go.
Is that what you mean?
Yes, That is what I meant.
I.e. Noise is so high on 19x19, that You need
19 matches
Mail list logo
