Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.

Hideki Kato: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Christoph Birk: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote: >>> According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems >>> pruning not interesting moves using patterns. >> >>Yes, but the UCT part will (sooner or later) explore EVERY p

Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.

Christoph Birk: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote: >> According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems >> pruning not interesting moves using patterns. > >Yes, but the UCT part will (sooner or later) explore EVERY path. Yes, but the estimated score could

Re: [computer-go] The dominance of search (Suzie v. GnuGo)

I watched MoGo playing with different rank of players. Usually 5d players has no problem winning. Starting from 4d begin to lose games. However, part of it is due to most players are not familar with 9x9 Go. Taking this into consideration I place MoGo at about amateur 2d. For professional player

Re: [computer-go] cgos viewer

Sweet program! Was taking a look at one of the games. Very nice interface for linux. -Josh On 4/10/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So you got it from the wrong place! Good - we can solve your problem then! Go here: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/index.html and I think you will

Re: [computer-go] The dominance of search (Suzie v. GnuGo)

Is that a better measure of playing strength? I don't think so. And if the only advantage is that it does not require gnugo, I don't see the point as gnugo is a marvellous tool, why avoid it? It's just another way to estimate the scope of the problem (Go) as the board size increases. And you do

Re: [computer-go] The dominance of search (Suzie v. GnuGo)

Here's another way to test this sort of thing that is completely intrinsic to the engine (doesn't require gnugo): Start with and empty board and zero komi. Analyze using UCT until the winning percentage at the root reaches X. Note the number of simulations required (or the amount of time). Re

Re: [computer-go] The dominance of search (Suzie v. GnuGo)

The results are that in order to keep the same winning rate, you have to increase the number of simulations by something a little larger than linear in the board area. From 9x9 to 13x13, you need something like 3 times more simulations for the same winning rate. Same thing from 13x13 to 19x19. As

Re: [computer-go] The dominance of search (Suzie v. GnuGo)

Hello, 2007/4/6, Tom Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: My guess is that the complexity of achieving a fixed standard of play (eg 1 dan) using a global alpha-beta or MC search is an exponential function of the board size. (...) To some extent, this is testable today by finding how a global search

Re: [computer-go] cgos viewer

Got it from: http://www.greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/public/ Got the windows version: cgosview-windows.zip Yes, Unzipped first. Earlier version worked fine! Tris At 12:29 PM 4/10/2007, you wrote: On T

Re: [computer-go] cgos viewer

So you got it from the wrong place! Good - we can solve your problem then! Go here: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/index.html and I think you will find a version that works for the new cgos. - Don On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 12:57 -0700, Tris wrote: > Got it from: > http://www.greencheeks.hom

Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.

I doubt it matters, because any such trick I can think of, could be massaged into a form where the engine would converge anyway. It all comes down to the terminology we're using being not so precise or universally accepted. And we can be sure that as the hardware improves, engine writers w

Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength. On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Christoph Birk wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote: >> According to the report on Mo

Re: [computer-go] cgos viewer

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 11:54 -0700, Tris wrote: Just tried to download the latest version. Downloaded, unzipped but didn't work/display. Did I not get it from where I should have?? It's hard to say - I don't know where you

Re: [computer-go] cgos viewer

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 11:54 -0700, Tris wrote: > Just tried to download the latest version. Downloaded, unzipped but > didn't work/display. > > Did I not get it from where I should have?? It's hard to say - I don't know where you got it from. Also, you didn't specify your operating system s

[computer-go] cgos viewer

Just tried to download the latest version. Downloaded, unzipped but didn't work/display. Did I not get it from where I should have?? Thanks... Tris... ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/li

Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote: According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems pruning not interesting moves using patterns. Yes, but the UCT part will (sooner or later) explore EVERY path. But then again, if you had the r

Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Hideki Kato wrote: According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems pruning not interesting moves using patterns. Yes, but the UCT part will (sooner or later) explore EVERY path. Christoph ___ computer-go mailin

[computer-go] off-topic: Tenured Faculty?

Is there anyone on this list who is a tenured associate or full professor at the college/university level, especially in the United States? If so, please contact me. I have set the Reply To: field accordingly. Thanks, Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ ___

Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.

According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems pruning not interesting moves using patterns. -gg Darren Cook: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: With infinite resource, i agree that random playout will find the >best move. But it seems that nothing is guaranteed for heavy playout.

RE: [computer-go] SGF-Questions

>> Chrilly wrote: >> c) if one setup-ups a position and there is no KO-Point. >>Is it necessary to specifiy a non-existing KO-Point >>(e.g. as KO[tt] or KO[] ) or has one to setup the KO >>only if there is a "real" KO-Point. > > Anders replied: > Only add the KO property if there's a fo

Re: [computer-go] SGF-Questions

- Original Message - From: "Anders Kierulf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'computer-go'" Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:37 PM Subject: RE: [computer-go] SGF-Questions a) If one setups a position. Is there a property for the number of white and black captured stones so far. No. (If

Re: [computer-go] Noise reduction in alpha-beta search

It can't be. He was probably studying the general game, not Go Ingo Althoefer published his results in the context of chess. Alpha-Beta Search was until recently not a topic in Go (besides its not possible). The score in Go is additive, if the score is territory. But that is not a possible eval

Re: [computer-go] Noise reduction in alpha-beta search

It can't be. He was probably studying the general game, not Go. The score in Go is additive, if the score is territory. 2-steps approach make some sense, but not in general situation. At each step the pendlum swings to one side is the nature of the game. Nothing wrong with it. One gets the same

Re: [computer-go] SGF-Questions

2007/4/10, Chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: a) If one setups a position. Is there a property for the number of white and black captured stones so far. I don't think so. Though KM can be used to adjust the score. b) There is the property AE. The list of empty points. Is it necessary to setup also

RE: [computer-go] SGF-Questions

> a) If one setups a position. Is there a property for the >number of white and black captured stones so far. No. (If you use Chinese scoring, that doesn't matter.) > b) There is the property AE. The list of empty points. >Is it necessary to setup also the empty points or is >it suffi

[computer-go] SGF-Questions

a) If one setups a position. Is there a property for the number of white and black captured stones so far. b) There is the property AE. The list of empty points. Is it necessary to setup also the empty points or is it sufficient to setup only the the black and white stones with AB and AW? c) if

[computer-go] CALL FOR PAPERS: COMPUTER GAMES WORKSHOP 2007

CALL FOR PAPERS: COMPUTER GAMES WORKSHOP 2007 Amsterdam, The Netherlands 15-17 June 2007 H.J. van den Herik and J.W.H.M. Uiterwijk Maastricht, The Netherlands IBM, SARA (Academic Computer Centre Amsterdam) and NCF (Foundation of National Computing Facilities) are enabli

Re: [computer-go] MoGo

Don Dailey wrote: On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 11:24 +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote: In fact this is how beginners think about the game. It doesn't seem to me like a good learning aid to try to get the computers to "emulate" the losing strategy weaker players use. Weaker players can not estimate the

Re: [computer-go] The dominance of search (Suzie v. GnuGo)

Yes, I'm exaggerating - but I do remember that when the idea came up, quite a bit of emotional reaction against it. Of course I realize that there have always been a few who believed some type of global search would be needed. - Don On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 23:53 -0500, Matt Gokey wrote: > >

Re: [computer-go] Simplified MC evaluator ?explained?

Weston Markham wrote: > 1. Uniform playouts, as used in practice, are not really uniform over > all legal go moves. Generally, pass moves are excluded until > necessary, and moves that fill "eyelike" points are excluded. So, I > assume that when you use the word "legal", you mean admissible wi

Re: [computer-go] The physics of Go playing strength.

According to the report on MoGo (RR-6062), its playout part seems pruning not interesting moves using patterns. -gg Darren Cook: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: With infinite resource, i agree that random playout will find the >best move. But it seems that nothing is guaranteed for heavy playout.