2009/5/22 Andrés Domínguez :
> 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
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
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
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
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 analysed
(properly): single passes or seemingly bad plays. When I stu
There is more than one optimal line of play. A few lines are only
optimal with certain rulesets
Sent from my iPhone
On May 21, 2009, at 5:54 PM, terry mcintyre
wrote:
Has anyone analyzed the lines of play by today's top programs at
7x7? Does it come down to a single line of perfect play
Has anyone analyzed the lines of play by today's top programs at 7x7? Does it
come down to a single line of perfect play, or are there interesting variations?
All of this is, of course, contingent on the ruleset.
Terry McIntyre
Any system of entrusting the government to judge and correct it
Don Dailey wrote:
7x7 isn't solved by computer, but the best ones play it extrememly
well. Does anyone have any information on how well they play it?
My guess is that with 9.5 komi, a strong computer playing white won't
lose much to anyone (as it's starting from a dead won position.)
On May 21, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Michael Alford
wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
I believe with CGOS rules, it is believed to be 9.0
I don't know if there is a proof of that, but I don't think there is
any dispute.
- Don
On Thu, May 21, 2009
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Michael Alford wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
>
>> I believe with CGOS rules, it is believed to be 9.0
>>
>> I don't know if there is a proof of that, but I don't think there is any
>> dispute.
>>
>> - Don
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Michael Williams <
Don Dailey wrote:
I believe with CGOS rules, it is believed to be 9.0
I don't know if there is a proof of that, but I don't think there is any
dispute.
- Don
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Michael Williams
mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>> wrote:
What was the consensus on 7x7 k
I believe with CGOS rules, it is believed to be 9.0
I don't know if there is a proof of that, but I don't think there is any
dispute.
- Don
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Michael Williams <
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What was the consensus on 7x7 komi? It was discussed back duri
What was the consensus on 7x7 komi? It was discussed back during Don's
scalability study, but I couldn't find the number itself. Was it 9.0?
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-
17 matches
Mail list logo
