Having made suggestions for how to start study by restricting tree
depth, let me continue by making suggestions for restricted breadth. For
decades everybody has been complaining about a too great branching
factor. Cut it right at its source: Add presuppositions aka rules that
restrict it. Exam
Don Dailey wrote:
There is no need to explore every cycle to get your proof.
Long cycles are a good example where one can start by making a weak
solution. Just change your presuppositions. Invent a long cycle rule
like "A play recreating the position after 4+ plays ends the game (or
your gam
Don Dailey wrote:
> I think the proof tree for both sides
can avoid those nearly infinite loops. I do agree that there are some
practical difficulties to doing this and being able to claim it's a proof.
One might start with a weak solution that makes some presuppositions
like "Never play ins
Don Dailey wrote:
Can you dig out the textbook where you got this list from
Writing it down as if it were a formal definition was a joke, of course.
I have made up the list myself but it has strong reasons: It is the
essence of my study of theoretical informatics at university. Whichever
goo
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
>
>> http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchives.jsp?user=mogoRennes
>
> ... in games 2 and 3 mogo lost quite late with
> some stupid very fast moves - this suggests that perhaps
> we should save up time in the beginning. Well, it's a
> conclusion based on a sample of 2 games :-)
I
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Dave Dyer wrote:
> At 06:31 PM 5/22/2009, David Doshay wrote:
> >there are no chains of size 30 on a 5x5 board,
>
> I'll concede for a 5x5 board, but I think my point
> is valid for "sufficiently large" boards, probably 7x7.
>
> Almost any strategy other than pla
At 06:31 PM 5/22/2009, David Doshay wrote:
>there are no chains of size 30 on a 5x5 board,
I'll concede for a 5x5 board, but I think my point
is valid for "sufficiently large" boards, probably 7x7.
Almost any strategy other than playing out all legal moves
involves a lot of hand waving that is u
there are no chains of size 30 on a 5x5 board, and if after a
"large" capture the remaining stones are unconditionally alive
the void at the location of the capture cannot be very large.
Do remember that we are talking about 5x5 with the first
move in the center as the winning move.
Cheers,
David
>
>You can just prove that you can make a large-enough chain that is
>unconditionally alive. I believe that's what Erik did. In practice,
>you cannot do an exhaustive search using superko rules because then
>hash table scores cannot be used.
I don't think you can always do that. For example, if
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Dave Dyer wrote:
>
> Some lines of play involving large captures will effectively never
> terminate, even with superko rules in effect.
But both sides need not play into this to build a proof tree. By the way,
an alpha/beta search IS IN FACT a proof, but it ha
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Dave Dyer wrote:
>
> Some lines of play involving large captures will effectively never
> terminate, even with superko rules in effect.
>
> I doubt it is possible to eliminate all these non-terminating
> lines of play in any way that is provably correct.
>
> .. So
Some lines of play involving large captures will effectively never
terminate, even with superko rules in effect.
I doubt it is possible to eliminate all these non-terminating
lines of play in any way that is provably correct.
.. So while claims of solution by exhaustive search might be very
conv
>
> Did you verify that Mogo would have played those "stupid fast" moves
> correctly without having to add too much time?
>
No, I've not checked. But the moves were really fast and
the comments of humans were in that direction.
I agree that we must have more (much more) time for early move. But
I think this is still a result to be proud of.
In the stupid fast moves, it's correct to play slow in the opening and fast
later in the game. It's just a question of how to set the balance.
Did you verify that Mogo would have played those "stupid fast" moves
correctly without having to add too
>
> http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchives.jsp?user=mogoRennes
>
> Taranu won the first three games and lost the final one.
> So, the score was 3-1 for him.
>
Thanks for the report. As far as I know (not completly sure) it's the first
win (in 9x9 game komi 7.5) of a computer against a human as black. I
Robert,
Can you dig out the textbook where you got this list from and be more
precise about what they are trying to define?It's obvious that they are
providing some kind of formal framework for establishing the CREDIBILITY of
a claim of proof, not what a proof or solution really is.
For inst
Don Dailey wrote:
in my view it's probably correct although it cannot be trusted as an
absolute proof.
A practical computational problem is "solved" iff
a) the underlying theory is published,
b) the underlying theory is proven mathematically,
c) the algorithm is published,
d) the algorithm is p
Today an exhibition match of four games was played
between program MoGo and European Champion
Catalin Taranu (5p).
On 9x9 board, with 30 min for each player.
Games (with tons of comments from spectators)
can be found in KGS archive, under
http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchives.jsp?user=mogoRennes
Tar
Robert,
A proper search tree is a proof, but there is the issue of determining if
there are any flaws in the search and that would require some kind of peer
review including a code review. For instance the hash table
implementation may not be admissible unless the positions themselves are
prop
2009/5/22 Robert Jasiek :
> Don Dailey wrote:
>> Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about?
>
> IIRC, I am sceptical about both 5x5 (esp. first move not at tengen) and 6x6.
AFAIK the claimed solution is tengen the first move. Maybe you are
remebering some interesting lines that starts with
Don Dailey wrote:
> Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about?
IIRC, I am sceptical about both 5x5 (esp. first move not at tengen) and
6x6. But I do not recall more details. Maybe I have not read all 5x5
papers about claimed solutions. If there is something with mathematical
proofs (abo
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
>
>> 7x7 isn't solved by computer, but the best ones play it extrememly well.
>>
>
> When looking through sample game trees of small board computer play, my
> impression was that by far too many "trivial" moves were not ana
2009/5/22 Yamato
>
> When I find a new improvement, Zen will be back to test it.
> Zen19 might have got 2d then.
Intuition tells me that your Zen might become to Go what Rybka is to chess.
Wish you luck in your research, and may the Force be with you! ;)
Yanis Batura
_
Yanis Batura wrote:
>Zen has almost got to 2d level on KGS,
>http://www.gokgs.com/graphPage.jsp?user=zen19. Unfortunately, it doesn't
>play since May, 8.
>
>1. Is there any hope that Zen19 will play again on KGS? I'm looking forward
>to it getting to higher dan levels.
When I find a new improvemen
24 matches
Mail list logo
