Sylvain,
First, congratulations for all you have accomplished in computer go and
for keeping such a good attitude while doing so. I hold out the hope that you
will come back another day with more ideas. (It would be?understandable if you
were maybe just a little bit sick of computer go ri
>-Original Message-
>From: Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: computer-go
>Sent: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 7:37 pm
>Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Most common 3x3 patterns
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:?
>> I have a set of 3x3 patterns trained on a subset of the ~20K games in > the
>> NNGS file
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a set of 3x3 patterns trained on a subset of the ~20K games in
the NNGS file that's floating about. I use them in my heavy MC
playouts and also for move prioritization in progressive widening. I
think they are very useful, up to a point.
- Dave Hillis
Are you
I have a set of 3x3 patterns trained on a subset of the?~20K games in the NNGS
file that's floating about. I use them in my heavy MC playouts and also for
move prioritization in progressive widening. I think they are very useful, up
to a point.
- Dave Hillis
___
I built a similar database of 3x3 patterns found in professional games. The
results looked interesting, but I never found a way to use it in a way
that really contributed to the evaluation.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http:
We tried a set of 3x3 patterns that were culled from a set of cgos
games involving the best programs. We did not have much success in
using them as predictors of eventual winner. That is not to say that
they can serve no purpose, but when we had such low success in win
prediction we felt th
Since I've started thinking about adding 3x3 patterns in my own code, has
anything ever evolved from this? For example, I'd be interested in
contrasting the frequency of playing a pattern with the frequency that the
opportunity to play the pattern pops up.
On 5/26/07, Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On 9/18/07, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Don't play in that spot if the "4" neighbors match your color
>
To avoid the questions about corners and edges, the reason the four is in
quotes is because it's usually 4, but can be 3 on the edge and 2 in the
corner. I tend to call stuff 4-
Method #1 - Don't play in that spot if the "4" neighbors match your color
and it'd be a suicide play for the opponent to play in that spot.
Method #2 - Don't play in that spot if the "4" neighbors match your color
and either...
It's a corner/edge and no diagonals are an enemy stone
Or it's a c
By the data in your upper table, the results need to uphold their mean
for 40 times as many trials before you even get a significant*
difference between #1 and #2.
Which are the two methods you used?
On 9/18/07, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> original eye method = 407 ELO
> alt eye meth
original eye method = 407 ELO
alt eye method #1 = 583 ELO
alt eye method #2 = 518 ELO
While both alternate methods are probably better than the original, I'm not
convinced there's a significant difference between the two alternate
methods. The cross-tables for both are fairly close and could
11 matches
Mail list logo
