...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 5:55 PM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] 9x9 is last frontier?
Alpha-beta rollouts is like MCTS without playouts (as in AlphaZero), and
something that can also do alpha-beta pruning.
With standard
Hi Ingo,
There is actually no randomness in the algorithm, just like AlphaZero's.
It is the same algorithm as a recursive alpha-beta searcher, with the only
difference being the rollouts version examines
one leaf per episode (one path from root to leaf). This opens the door for
mixing alpha-beta
Hi Dan,
I find your definition of "Alpha-Beta rollouts" somewhat puzzling.
> Alpha-beta rollouts is like MCTS without playouts (as in
> AlphaZero), and something that can also do alpha-beta pruning.
I would instead define "Alpha-Beta rollout" in the following way:
You have a fast alpha-beta pr
twork. MCTS will
>>>> eventually search every move infinitely often, producing asymptotically
>>>> optimal play. But if the policy network does not provide the guidance
>>>> necessary to rapidly refute the blunders that occur in the search, then
>>>> convergence
t; Behalf Of *Dan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 6, 2018 1:46 PM
>
> *To:* computer-go@computer-go.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Computer-go] 9x9 is last frontier?
>
>
>
> I am pretty sure it is an MCTS problem and I suspect not something that
> could be easily solved with a policy netw
mal play will be very slow.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is necessary for the network to train on self-play games using MCTS.
>>> For instance, the AGZ approach samples next states during training games by
>>> sampling from the distribution of visits in the
: Re: [Computer-go] 9x9 is last frontier?
I am pretty sure it is an MCTS problem and I suspect not something that could
be easily solved with a policy network (could be wrong hree). My opinon is that
DCNN is not
a miracle worker (as somebody already mentioned here) and it is going to fail
ited play!
>>
>>
>>
>> You see how this policy trains both search and evaluation to be
>> internally consistent? The policy head is trained to refute the bad moves
>> that will come up in search, and the value head is trained to the value
>> observed by the full
er-go-boun...@computer-go.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Dan
> *Sent:* Monday, March 5, 2018 4:55 AM
> *To:* computer-go@computer-go.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Computer-go] 9x9 is last frontier?
>
>
>
> Actually prior to this it was trained with hundreds of thousands of
> stockfish g
-go.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] 9x9 is last frontier?
Actually prior to this it was trained with hundreds of thousands of stockfish
games and didn’t do well on tactics (the games were actually a blunder fest). I
believe this is a problem of the MCTS used and not due to for lack of training
On 5/03/2018 10:54, Dan wrote:
> I believe this is a problem of the MCTS used and not due
> to for lack of training.
>
> Go is a strategic game so that is different from chess that is full of
> traps.
Does the Alpha Zero result not indicate the opposite, i.e. that MCTS is
workable?
--
GCP
Actually prior to this it was trained with hundreds of thousands of
stockfish games and didn’t do well on tactics (the games were actually a
blunder fest). I believe this is a problem of the MCTS used and not due to
for lack of training.
Go is a strategic game so that is different from chess that
On 02-03-18 17:07, Dan wrote:
> Leela-chess is not performing well enough
I don't understand how one can say that given that they started with the
random network last week only and a few clients. Of course it's bad!
That doesn't say anything about the approach.
Leela Zero has gotten strong but i
2018-03-02 16:07 GMT+00:00 Dan :
> Hello Aja,
>
> Could you enlighten me on how AlphaZero handles tactics in chess ?
>
> It seems the mcts approach as described in the paper does not perform well
> enough.
>
> Leela-chess is not performing well enough even though leela-go seems to be
> doing well.
Leela chess is here https://github.com/glinscott/leela-chess
It uses the exact MCTS algorithm as described in AlphaZero, with value and
policy networks, but performs really badly in tactics (often missing 2-3
ply shallow tactics)
To get a somewhat strong MCTS chess engine, I had to use alpha-beta
Where is leela chess. How many games it is trained on?
Le 2 mars 2018 18:20, "Dan" a écrit :
> Hello Aja,
>
> Could you enlighten me on how AlphaZero handles tactics in chess ?
>
> It seems the mcts approach as described in the paper does not perform well
> enough.
>
> Leela-chess is not perform
Do you think deep learning can understand and solve double
ko, for example?
Hideki
Aja Huang: :
>2018-03-02 6:50 GMT+00:00 "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de>:
>
>> Von: "David Doshay"
>> > Go is hard.
>> > Programming is hard.
>> >
>> > Programming Go is hard squared.
>> > ;^)
>>
>> And tha
Hello Aja,
Could you enlighten me on how AlphaZero handles tactics in chess ?
It seems the mcts approach as described in the paper does not perform well
enough.
Leela-chess is not performing well enough even though leela-go seems to be
doing well.
Daniel
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Aja
2018-03-02 6:50 GMT+00:00 "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de>:
> Von: "David Doshay"
> > Go is hard.
> > Programming is hard.
> >
> > Programming Go is hard squared.
> > ;^)
>
> And that on square boards.
> Mama mia!
>
Go is hard for humans, but in my own opinion I think Go seems to be too
ea
Von: "David Doshay"
> Go is hard.
> Programming is hard.
>
> Programming Go is hard squared.
> ;^)
And that on square boards.
Mama mia!
;-) Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/compute
Go is hard.
Programming is hard.
Programming Go is hard squared.
;^)
Cheers,
David G Doshay
ddos...@mac.com
> On 28, Feb 2018, at 5:43 PM, Hideki Kato wrote:
>
> Go is still hard for both human and computers :).
___
Computer-go mailing list
Compu
Thank you for being so kind in your response. I truly appreciate it.
s.
On Feb 28, 2018 6:32 PM, "Hideki Kato" wrote:
> uurtamo .: mail.gmail.com>:
> >I didn't mean to suggest that I can or will solve this problem tomorrow.
> >
> >What I meant to say is that it is clearly obvious that 9x9 is n
uurtamo .: :
>I didn't mean to suggest that I can or will solve this problem tomorrow.
>
>What I meant to say is that it is clearly obvious that 9x9 is not immune to
>being destroyed -- it's not what people play professionally (or at least is
>not what is most famous for being played professionally
I didn't mean to suggest that I can or will solve this problem tomorrow.
What I meant to say is that it is clearly obvious that 9x9 is not immune to
being destroyed -- it's not what people play professionally (or at least is
not what is most famous for being played professionally), so it is going
I think Hideki-san makes a great point. To rephrase it my way,
AlphaGo-related advancements never really solved the MCTS limitation to
properly read out precise "one way street" sequences and deal with the
horizon effect. The value network amazingly compensates enough for this
limitation on 19x
uurtamo .: :
>Slow down there, hombre.
>
>There's no secret sauce to 9x9 other than that it isn't the current focus
>of people.
>
>Just like 7x7 isn't immune.
>
>A computer program for 9x9, funded, backed by halfway serious people, and
>focused on the task, will *destroy* human opponents at any tim
Slow down there, hombre.
There's no secret sauce to 9x9 other than that it isn't the current focus
of people.
Just like 7x7 isn't immune.
A computer program for 9x9, funded, backed by halfway serious people, and
focused on the task, will *destroy* human opponents at any time it needs to.
If you
That's not the point, Petri. 9x9 has almost no "silent"
or "static" positons which value networks superb humans.
On 9x9 boards, Kos, especially double Kos and two step Kos
are important but MCTS still works worse for them, for
examples. Human professionals are much better at life&death
and c
elo-range in 9x9 smaller than 19x19. One just cannot be hugelyl better than
the other is such limitted game
2018-02-23 21:15 GMT+02:00 Hiroshi Yamashita :
> Hi,
>
> Top 19x19 program reaches 4200 BayesElo on CGOS. But 3100 in 9x9.
> Maybe it is because people don't have much interest in 9x9.
> Bu
Hi,
Top 19x19 program reaches 4200 BayesElo on CGOS. But 3100 in 9x9.
Maybe it is because people don't have much interest in 9x9.
But it seems value network does not work well in 9x9.
Weights_33_400 is maybe made by selfplay network. But it is 2946 in 9x9.
Weights_31_3200 is 4069 in 19x19 though.
Hi,
Hi there,
I have developed a neural network based 9x9 bot which I am trying to run on KGS
using the java kgsGtp gateway (version 3.5.20). The bot is called NubbyBot.
When playing 9x9 games everything works fine. But occasionally the system will
attempt to setup a 19x19 game with the bot. T
I just restarted it.
2009/4/19 Brian Sheppard
> cgosview-win32 has been showing game 742478 as the most-recent game for
> quite a while.
>
> ___
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/co
cgosview-win32 has been showing game 742478 as the most-recent game for
quite a while.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
In message ,
Olivier Teytaud writes
Thank you for writing this very interesting report. But it's a 40Mb
pdf
file, my Internet Explorer can't handle it at all, and my FireFox
only
with difficulty. A more accessible version, perhaps without the
high-resolution pictures, might reach more r
>
>
> Thank you for writing this very interesting report. But it's a 40Mb pdf
> file, my Internet Explorer can't handle it at all, and my FireFox only
> with difficulty. A more accessible version, perhaps without the
> high-resolution pictures, might reach more readers.
>
Sorry for that :-)
htt
ort anyway.
David
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Wedd"
To: "computer-go"
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9 MoGo vs human
> In message
> , Olivier
> Teytaud writes
>>In the computer-Go event of Clermont-Ferr
In message
, Olivier
Teytaud writes
>In the computer-Go event of Clermont-Ferrand,
>MoGo played four 9x9 games, plus blitz games,
>against Motoki Noguchi (chinese rules, komi 7.5);
>the result is a draw - the games are presented and discussed in
>http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/crClermont/cr.pdf
Than
In the computer-Go event of Clermont-Ferrand,
MoGo played four 9x9 games, plus blitz games,
against Motoki Noguchi (chinese rules, komi 7.5);
the result is a draw - the games are presented and discussed in
http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/crClermont/cr.pdf
Best regards,
Olivier
_
David Fotland wrote:
>At this point I think everyone would agree that E5 is the optimal first move
>for black on 9x9.
>
>Now that I have deeper and more accurate search, my engine favors E7 in
>response to E5 by a large margin. Do the other strong programs also find
>that E7 is best response?
I h
David,
I did a statistical analysis of all the games on CGOS a while back and
found that e5 is the move that wins the most games.
HOWEVER, I also found that if you mini-max 2 ply, then there is another
move slightly stronger than e5. The reason e5 appears best
statistically is that a lot of
At this point I think everyone would agree that E5 is the optimal first move
for black on 9x9.
Now that I have deeper and more accurate search, my engine favors E7 in
response to E5 by a large margin. Do the other strong programs also find
that E7 is best response?
After E5 E7, there are several
David Fotland wrote:
Can you put crazystone back on 19x19 so I can see if it is just a fluke
against fuego?
I added locality to the light playouts - play near last or second to last
move, and some code to handle long ladders in playouts. I don’t think this
is anything unusual.
I think you h
of
> testing,
> since it takes several days on 19x19 to get an accurate rating.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> David
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rémi Coulom
> > Se
Quoting David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Can you put crazystone back on 19x19 so I can see if it is just a fluke
against fuego?
I added locality to the light playouts - play near last or second to last
move, and some code to handle long ladders in playouts. I dont think this
is anything unu
nd
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:32 AM
> To: 'computer-go'
> Subject: RE: [computer-go] 9x9 to 19x19 scaling strangeness
>
> Can you put crazystone back on 19x19 so I can see if it is just a fluke
> against fuego?
>
> I added locality to the light playouts
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Olivier Teytaud
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:24 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9 to 19x19 scaling strangeness
I made a change over the weekend, which looks like it makes 9x9 150 ELO
weaker and 19x19
gt; Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:20 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9 to 19x19 scaling strangeness
>
> David Fotland wrote:
> > I made a change over the weekend, which looks like it makes 9x9 150
> ELO
> > weaker and 19x19 over 200 ELO s
I made a change over the weekend, which looks like it makes 9x9 150 ELO
> weaker and 19x19 over 200 ELO stronger.
>
> We have plenty of size-dependent parameters and plenty of "if
(boardsize==19)" in MoGo for things like that :-)
___
computer-go mailing l
David Fotland wrote:
I made a change over the weekend, which looks like it makes 9x9 150 ELO
weaker and 19x19 over 200 ELO stronger.
Very strange.
David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listi
I made a change over the weekend, which looks like it makes 9x9 150 ELO
weaker and 19x19 over 200 ELO stronger.
Very strange.
David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
I see the problem - I just looked at the log file. I think I can fix
it but right now I don't have the time.
Right now I force the server to restart once every 24 hours - so at
least it won't more than a day out of date.
- Don
Jason House wrote:
Additionally, I noticed the update time
I don't know why all of a sudden there are problems with this. But
I need to take a look when I get a chance.
- Don
Jason House wrote:
Additionally, I noticed the update time is labeled UCT instead of UTC
Sent from my iPhone
___
computer-go
Additionally, I noticed the update time is labeled UCT instead of UTC
Sent from my iPhone
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Sent from my iPhone
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
It looks like the server is running, but the standings page is not
being updated:
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-
Christoph Birk wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
> ... is room for improvement. But 19x19 is something else, perhaps we
>>
>> can have the Dan, but I'm not sure of that in spite of the gentle
>> words of
>> Catalin, and I'm sure the current
>> mogo can't win against
ition.
David
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Wedd
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:41 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christop
9:32 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
> ... is room for improvement. But 19x19 is something else, perhaps we
> >
> > can have the Dan, but I'm not sure of that in spite of the gentle
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christoph
Birk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
... is room for improvement. But 19x19 is something else, perhaps we
can have the Dan, but I'm not sure of that in spite of the gentle
words of
Catalin, and I'm sure
On 26-mrt-08, at 13:31, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
... is room for improvement. But 19x19 is something else, perhaps we
can have the Dan, but I'm not sure of that in spite of the gentle
words of
Catalin, and I'm sure the current
mogo can't
On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
... is room for improvement. But 19x19 is something else, perhaps we
can have the Dan, but I'm not sure of that in spite of the gentle
words of
Catalin, and I'm sure the current
mogo can't win against a professionnal player in 19x19 whene
terry mcintyre: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I attempted to access the games of IaGoChall, and
>could not; the KGS client beeped at me.
>
>Is there a method to review the game records?
We can download but cannot review the records directly. Watch them
at offline.
-Hideki
>Thanks!
>
>
>Terry McIntyre
games. I'm sorry that you weren't able to use the full
cluster on the 19x19 game, it would have been
interesting to see how much of an improvement would
result with such a network of computers.
I guess the games can be seen on KGS, user mogobot1, against teytaud
(don't look at games against oth
I attempted to access the games of IaGoChall, and
could not; the KGS client beeped at me.
Is there a method to review the game records?
Thanks!
Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state
education. It has been discovered th
Olivier, and the rest of the Mogo team,
Congratulations! I am looking forward to seeing the
games. I'm sorry that you weren't able to use the full
cluster on the 19x19 game, it would have been
interesting to see how much of an improvement would
result with such a network of computers.
Terry McI
Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:
> Olivier Teytaud wrote:
> > We have removed most of the openings, because they have been generated
> > before we modify the behavior of mogo in front of Nakade, and the mogo
> > with new nakade-behavior seemingly does not like the openings generated
> > before the nakade-
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
> We have removed most of the openings, because they have been generated
> before we modify the behavior of mogo in front of Nakade, and the mogo
> with new nakade-behavior seemingly does not like the openings generated
> before the nakade-improvement. I guess a very
> stron
congratulations to mogo on its performance today!
it was an excellent result (1-2) versus a professional,
Thanks a lot. MoGo has also played some games against other
players (including a professional player) and I hope people
will accept that we publish the results (they are better than
against
congratulations to mogo on its performance today!
it was an excellent result (1-2) versus a professional,
s.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
I just gave it a kick - within about 15 minutes or so the server will
restart and this should start updating.
I won't be around to babysit it, but it should be ok.
- Don
Christoph Birk wrote:
> http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html
> is not updating.
>
> Christoph
>
> _
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html
is not updating.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Michael Williams wrote:
> Has the full game collection from this study been posted anywhere? I
> couldn't find any reference to it in the email list. And I didn't see
> any reference to it on the 929 scalability results page.
Here are all the games I could collect. I'm not sure whether this
Has the full game collection from this study been posted anywhere? I couldn't find any reference to it in the email list. And I didn't see any reference to it
on the 929 scalability results page.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.or
Hi Don,
As I said it is confusing :). limitTreeSize does not make much sense
since collectorLimitTreeSize, so it is more or less historical. Just
put limitTreeSize to something bigger to collectorLimitTreeSize, and
just forget about it. collectorLimitTreeSize is the size where the
garbage collecti
Sylvain,
These 2 parameters are confusing to me. --collectorLimitTreeSize
sounds like it limits the tree size to whatever your setting are, but
so does --limitTreeSize. What is the difference between a tree and
a collector tree?
I assume the collector is a garbage collector of some sor
On Jan 31, 2008 4:31 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FatMan doesn't use a hash table to represent the tree, it actually uses
> a tree with pointers and so on.
>
> For detection of repetition in the search part, FatMan uses a 64 bit
> zobrist key.
How do you find a pre-existing nod
rist hashes? just curious.
>
> :)
>
> s.
>
> - Original Message
> From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: computer-go
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:33:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9 study rolloff
>
>
>
> Janzert wrote:
>
>
> To: computer-go
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:33:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9 study rolloff
>
>
>
> Janzert wrote:
> > I haven't seen anyone else mention this, although I may have missed it
> > in one of the previous discussions.
>
how many bits are you guys using for your (presumably)
zobrist hashes? just curious.
:)
s.
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:33:36 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9 study rolloff
Janzert
wrote
Janzert wrote:
> I haven't seen anyone else mention this, although I may have missed it
> in one of the previous discussions.
>
> I find it pretty amazing that both Mogo and Fatman are leveling off at
> exactly, or almost exactly, the same number of playouts (i.e. Fatman lvl
> 14 == Mogo lvl 18 =
Hi,
With such a large number of playouts, the tree size limit (and so
heavy pruning) is certainly a possible hypothesis. The simplest way to
test it would be to run the same MoGo_17 or _18 with a much bigger
tree (taking more memory). --collectorLimitTreeSize is by default
40 (number of nodes)
I haven't seen anyone else mention this, although I may have missed it
in one of the previous discussions.
I find it pretty amazing that both Mogo and Fatman are leveling off at
exactly, or almost exactly, the same number of playouts (i.e. Fatman lvl
14 == Mogo lvl 18 == 8388608 playouts). Could
Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:33 AM
>> To: computer-go
>> Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9 Study
>>
>> I would like to see a very strong players
: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:33 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9 Study
>
> I would like to see a very strong players analysis of some of the games
> of Mogo at the high levels in the study, but I am very leery of
> subjective human analysis. Even though
I would like to see a very strong players analysis of some of the games
of Mogo at the high levels in the study, but I am very leery of
subjective human analysis. Even though I would like to see it, I
would take what I heard with a grain of salt.
I hate to keep bringing this up, but t
I can well believe that a through implementation of even a flawed knowledge of
the game of Go will lead to fairly strong play.
For instance, given enough time, just knowing enough to keep score and remove
groups which are deprived of liberties would be enough to prune the more
egregious mistake
It appears that CGOS (9x9) is down.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
CGOS is down right now.
- Original Message
From: Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:45:16 AM
Subject: [computer-go] 9x9 CGOS
I'm trying to get back on 9x9 cgos and I'm having some trouble. I'm
using the windows execu
cgosview can take a while to load even on fast connections. There's a
slight chance you're not being patient enough.
PS: For ports, I usually find a packet sniffer helpful for such things
(ethereal/wireshark is available for free). I assume someone can give a far
better answer.
On 10/26/07, Chr
I'm trying to get back on 9x9 cgos and I'm having some trouble. I'm
using the windows executables from Don's web page. cgosview.exe shows
me nothing when I run it. Is there a command line option I need to
use to set a certain port? And what are the command line options for
cgos3.exe? I tried %
I restarted it.
- Don
On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 20:13 +1000, Joel Veness wrote:
> 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/
_
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/
Another way to give handicap would be to set komi to different values
[range: -(board area - 1) .. (board area - 1)].
One advantage is that komi allows for "exact" tuning, to the last point. You
can also let the weaker player be white this way [without causing an uproar
in the go community by giv
>
> I also agree that 9x9 doesn't compare to 19x19. I disagree that it's
> not interesting. It would be uninteresting if, for instance, someone
> like you were just as good at the top pro's at 9x9. It stops being
> interested when it can be "mastered."If the top players can always
> play
Yes. This number is strongly dependent on strength and board size I
think. Very roughly speaking, you can argue as follows
1) in a 9x9 game, the weaker player has only 1/4 as many moves in
which to throw away the handicap advantage (compared to 19x19).
2) weak players lose so many points compar
Don Dailey wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:10 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss
ratio to approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to improvements.
As one tweaks the program, the progress would be measurable within a
few games
On 7/9/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the common formula is 100 ELO per stone? I think we could
start with this guess (or a better one) and after a few weeks of play we
could do a statistical analysis to see if things are as they should be.
Then we could make any adjustments
I think it would be great to try this out. Perhaps at 13x13.
On 7/9/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:10 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
> I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss
> ratio to approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:10 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
> I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss
> ratio to approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to improvements.
> As one tweaks the program, the progress would be measurable within a
> few games, one's handicap
I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss ratio to
approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to improvements. As one tweaks the
program, the progress would be measurable within a few games, one's handicap
would decrease.
Is it possible to tie together the handicap
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
