Hi,
On the topic of markers, attached is what I did when a year back when
I was still interested in Go
I am not at all saying that this is the best way to do it (there is a
bit of overhead), but it is a cute trick that should bring a smile or
two.
Joel
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Mark
Hi Claus,
> In sum, there doesn't seem to be a good basis for understanding playouts
> and their optimisation, other than by trial and error. Those who've been
> through some cycles of trial-and-error probably have at least a vague
> intuition of what works and what doesn't (or didn't when they la
Ok, thanks.
Out of curiosity, how does UCT compare with classical search methods
at Amazons currently?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Martin Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Is this game independent kernel also used for Alberta's general game
>> playing entry?
>
> No. We have programs fo
Hi Martin,
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Martin Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> as Rémi has pointed out, we have decided to make our Monte-Carlo Tree Search
> based program available as open source with an LGPL licence. This program,
> now called Fuego, has evolved from the E
I was waiting for this one... :)
Joel
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Hideki Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Álvaro Begué: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Ooops! I hit sent before I finished writing the pseudo code. Sorry.
> >
> >int pick(Move *empties, int num_empties) {
> > int num_candidate
, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Joel Veness wrote:
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > Goanna (agog) timed out annoyingly in that game against GNU.
> >
> > I have since implemented a rule: "if after some number of samples you
> > have a
reasonable handling of canadian and byo yomi time and unit tests
> to exercise the code. In January's tournament, Nick had commented about
> HouseBot nearly losing on time with 6 seconds left in late endgame. This
> was perfectly normal behavior for my time management in late
Hi Nick,
Goanna (agog) timed out annoyingly in that game against GNU.
I have since implemented a rule: "if after some number of samples you
have a winning probability that is very close to 1.0, just make the
best move right away". There is no need to spend so long thinking in
these ridiculous end
Hi Ivan,
I like to view game tree search methods as a systematic ways to
correct static evaluation errors. I don't find it surprising that UCT
scales well with increasing time and space. I claim that the accuracy
of the monte-carlo method increases as we get closer to the end of a
game. UCT helps
Hi Christoph,
I have been thinking about making a version of Goanna (~2250 on CGOS)
public, once it plays in a human friendly way.
At the moment, it is nearly unusable for fun human vs computer matches
because of a lack of opening book (slow first few moves), and
ridiculous endgame play.
Conside
Hi Don,
Sorry if this idea has already been suggested and rejected, but would
it be possible to make the server automatically restart every night?
Joel
On Nov 21, 2007 1:41 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jacques,
>
> I am responsible for 9x9 CGOS and I was away for almost a week.
I believe 9x9 is down again.
Best,
Joel
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
For anyone else interested in this topic, I recommend "Hackers's
Delight". It is a book full of similar tricks and explanations.
On 7/20/07, elife <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. In my firefox, the page is fine.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go
Hi Chris,
Yes, I understand that deciding on zero seconds is an option. But
consider the following situation: Your engine makes a move very
quickly (perhaps it is a statically-recognized, large-group-saving
move or maybe your time management code demanded a fast move). Now
suppose your oppone
Hi Peter,
On 5/2/07, Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Orego also uses option B. Because UCT eventually focuses search on the most
promising moves, it probably will spend most of its time on a single move,
effectively doing A without the need for extra parameter settings.
Yes, this is one
Hi Don,
Thanks for all your comments.
I should have mentioned in my initial post that I have a bit of a
chess programming background - which means I know option A quite well.
I have implemented pondering with both the Winboard and UCI protocols,
so I am confident that I know what needs to be don
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your response.
Don has stated a couple of times that option (A) worked better for
him. I chose option (B) without testing option (A) because I did not
want to have to decide how many seconds to use to guess the opponent
move before starting to think about my next move.
T
eft after opponent move' / 'size of ponder subtree' * X
My intuition suggests that b) is the better approach, but I know that
a) works much better in computer chess.
Any comments would be most appreciated.
Joel Veness
___
compute
18 matches
Mail list logo
