One more thought:
It would be interesting to see the degree to which following a
proximity heuristic leads to the renormalizations looking cold.
Cheers,
David
On 28, Feb 2007, at 11:07 AM, David Doshay wrote:
I do agree with Alain that beginners mix too little and random
players too much.
I do agree with Alain that beginners mix too little and random
players too much.
I am most intrigued with the recent results from Dave Hillis,
where he shows what I have been calling a move towards a
"transition temperature" with a selected set of heuristics in
the playout. When he is willing to
Le mercredi 28 février 2007 16:49, Oliver Lewis a écrit :
> On 2/23/07, David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 22, Feb 2007, at 9:03 PM, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> > > ... I made very slow progress to formalize this ...
> > > But the whole stuff is rather coherent in my mind.
> >
> >
On 2/23/07, David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 22, Feb 2007, at 9:03 PM, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> ... I made very slow progress to formalize this ...
> But the whole stuff is rather coherent in my mind.
Then I envy you. I have been trying to bring what I know
about MC in physics toget
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 11:11 +0900, igo wrote:
> > If computers ever become world champion strength at 19x19, there will
> > probably have been some simplification that makes this possbile, I
> > don't
> > see it being a (direct) result of faster computers or more processors.
> >
> > So in this s
> If computers ever become world champion strength at 19x19, there will
> probably have been some simplification that makes this possbile, I
> don't
> see it being a (direct) result of faster computers or more processors.
>
> So in this situation it is POSSIBLE, that the game gets difficult more
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 02:50 +0900, igo wrote:
> My point is simple.
> for example, [MoGo] can beat a 3d person at 9x9 now.
> but the same person(3d) will beat [MoGo] at 13x13 easily at this
> time.
> Will you agree ?
> when [MoGo] can beat the same person at 13x13,
> then the same person will beat
no englich me french
igo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : Hello Jacque:
Thanks for the comments.
> my point is that 19x19 is the optimal size for human abilities.
I don't think so.
19x19 is merely the size of Go originally.
for human abilities in Go, 19x19, 21x21...99x99 are about the same.
>
Hello Jacque:
Thanks for the comments.
> my point is that 19x19 is the optimal size for human abilities.
I don't think so.
19x19 is merely the size of Go originally.
for human abilities in Go, 19x19, 21x21...99x99 are about the same.
> ... The entire fuseki theory is board size dependent.
Hello igo:
igo wrote (on behalf of "Making the board bigger would probably make the
game
weaker for humans. I presume the day a computer is world champion,
increasing
board size would give the computer even more advantage."):
I presume exact the opposite way.
Of course, who knows. This is
@computer-go.org
Sent: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
This looks like the only plausible precondition: given a board of n points, n-1
are filled with the same color, and the opposing player plays the nth point,
capturing the lot. Hopefully, any player of modest
This looks like the only plausible precondition: given a board of n points, n-1
are filled with the same color, and the opposing player plays the nth point,
capturing the lot. Hopefully, any player of modest skill would not fill the
penultimate eye of his own group.
Terry McIntyre
From: Chris
5/ Percolation: I tend to think of some dynamical systems (like
spin-glasses) as naturally moving toward a static end-state where every cell
is frozen (e.g up or down, black or white). (This is generally a good
property for go games to have too.) But some systems just keep going. As you
bring wate
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: computer-go@computer-go.org
>Sent: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:03 AM
>Subject: Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
>
>Your analogy with physics encourage me to share other physical analogies.
>1/ Cooling the
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 22:17 +0900, igo wrote:
> > Making the board bigger would probably make the game weaker for humans.
> > I presume the day a computer is world champion,
> > increasing board size would give the computer even more advantage.
> > (Againstthe common search-width based intuition
> Making the board bigger would probably make the game weaker for humans.
> I presume the day a computer is world champion,
> increasing board size would give the computer even more advantage.
> (Againstthe common search-width based intuition.)
I presume exact the opposite way.
The day a com
Ray Tayek wrote:
it's also hard to see why 21x21 would be boring (i
can see 17x17 being too simple in some sense).
There is also the length of a game. 21x21 is 22% bigger
in terms of cells. Professional players can work two
days on a 19x19 game. Making the board bigger would
probably make th
On 22, Feb 2007, at 9:03 PM, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
... I made very slow progress to formalize this ...
But the whole stuff is rather coherent in my mind.
Then I envy you. I have been trying to bring what I know
about MC in physics together with Go for over 20 years,
and I get tripped up ever
At 09:03 PM 2/22/2007, you wrote:
4/ shape/size resonance
(un)fortunately the 19x19 size is just the critical size to have problems.
-17x17 is too small, corners influence is too strong, it is quickly
possible to take the border. (= 3 bubbles)
-21x21 is too wide, it is not possible to quic
Le jeudi 22 février 2007 01:16, David Doshay a écrit :
> It is pretty clear to me that, if the analogy to MC simulations in
> magnets
> is of any value, the temperature of the Go game you show is hotter than
> optimal.
>
> If the temperature were at the transition temperature, then each of the
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
