ge.
I made GUI to GTP program. It looks work until KCC passes.
After KCC passes, it often failed screen recognition.
Regards,
Hiroshi Yamashita
- Original Message -
From: "Rémi Coulom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "computer-go"
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 4:09 A
onal program at 19x19.
>
> David
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Osgood
> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:54 AM
> > To: computer-go
> > Subject: Re: [computer-go] best approac
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Osgood
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:54 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] best approach forward
>
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
>
> > In case nobody noticed, Crazy Stone won a match agains
Ian Osgood wrote:
On Oct 11, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
In case nobody noticed, Crazy Stone won a match against KCC Igo this
summer, with 15 wins and 4 losses. The match was organized by Hiroshi
Yamashita. The games can be found in the KGS archives.
http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchiv
On Oct 11, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
In case nobody noticed, Crazy Stone won a match against KCC Igo
this summer, with 15 wins and 4 losses. The match was organized by
Hiroshi Yamashita. The games can be found in the KGS archives.
http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchives.jsp?user=kccon
Le jeudi 11 octobre 2007 21:15, Don Dailey a écrit :
> I appreciate the vote of confidence, but my point is that if you want
> some kind of "certified" rating CGOS is not a good choice. You can run
> anything on CGOS and claim anything. You could even substitute a
> strong human player, if you
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:32:44PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
>
> But what I had in mind in some kind of ratings agency where the
> conditions are controlled and everything is completely open.
>
> Here is what is required:
>
> 1. Someone with at least 2 equal DEDICATED computers plus a server.
>
Le jeudi 11 octobre 2007 22:31, Christoph Birk a écrit :
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
> > But we had a 19x19 server and it WAS NOT interesting. Nobody seemed
> > willing to play on it.
>
> Maybe that has changed now.
> It was not interesting because there was only one competitive
> pr
> One thing computer chess has had for a very long time and is practically
> absent in Go is a rating list. It's always been possible to identify
> who the best programs and where they stand relative to any other. There
> are agencies that play hundreds of thousands of games constantly to
> tra
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
But we had a 19x19 server and it WAS NOT interesting. Nobody seemed
willing to play on it.
Maybe that has changed now.
It was not interesting because there was only one competitive
program on it (MoGo). Most people's programs are too weak
at 19x19, but ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In the computer chess ratings they don't necessarily use identical
machines, the idea is to simply publish each player as a
software/hardware combo.You will see for instance that some programs
were tested on a variety of hardware.
Which in itself
I'd say that the CGOS server has been an invaluable spur to development, since
it does allow fairly easy testing against the competition.
What Don seems to be proposing is a way of standardizing the hardware - all
programs run on the same platform.
It seems that this would require an organizati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Doshay wrote:
> The problem with a "closed" system where the tournament director
> controls both of the machines is that it precludes programs like mine,
> SlugGo, that intrinsically use multiple CPUs and run on Macs rather
> than Windows or Lin
The problem with a "closed" system where the tournament director
controls both of the machines is that it precludes programs like mine,
SlugGo, that intrinsically use multiple CPUs and run on Macs rather
than Windows or Linux boxes.
Cheers,
David
On 11, Oct 2007, at 12:15 PM, Don Dailey wrote
Most lists are amateur, but some are funded by magazines. EHSS below
is published by Selective Search Magazine, and the CSS list is from
the German Computer Schach und Spiele magazine.
The SSDF is probably the longest running of the lists, with data
going back to the first dedicated chess
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but my point is that if you want
some kind of "certified" rating CGOS is not a good choice. You can run
anything on CGOS and claim anything. You could even substitute a
strong human player, if you wanted to.
Serious
Yeah, let's get it up tonight (in three hours). I can't give you an
account, but I can administer it.
On 10/11/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Olivier Teytaud wrote:
> >> I'd connect Crazy Stone to CGOS if Many Faces is there.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but my point is that if you want
some kind of "certified" rating CGOS is not a good choice. You can run
anything on CGOS and claim anything. You could even substitute a
strong human player, if you wanted to.
So
On Oct 11, 2007, at 10:44 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My point is that this probably won't happen in computer Go but it
happened long ago in computer chess.
- - Don
Can you point us to info about comparable agency for computer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
>> I'd connect Crazy Stone to CGOS if Many Faces is there.
>
> Mogo will be there also; a 19x19 Cgos would be very interesting
> in my humble opinion.
But we had a 19x19 server and it WAS NOT interesting. Nobody seemed
will
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Right now we know that Mogo dominates in 9x9. Without CGOS this would
be speculation based on who won the last tournament. But CGOS is not
the right way although it's a useful tool.There needs to be some
kind of testing agency that is fair and unbias
I'd connect Crazy Stone to CGOS if Many Faces is there.
Mogo will be there also; a 19x19 Cgos would be very interesting
in my humble opinion. The only drawback of Cgos for me is that
we have no idea (at least, I have no idea) of the equivalence
with human standards (kgs rankings are much easier
the search parameters are fixed.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:33 AM
>> To: computer-go
>> Subject: Re: [computer-go] best approach
ber 11, 2007 10:33 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] best approach forward
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Fotland wrote:
> > I agree. Computer go needs someone who will play large
> tournaments are
> > publish
-Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rémi Coulom
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] best approach forward
>
>
> Don Dailey wrote:
>
> > I believe Many Faces
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't know who funds these but I know they are commonly accepted
standards.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2640/ssdf/ssdf.htm
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/
http://www.elhchess.demon.co.uk/ehss.htm
- - Don
t
Don Dailey wrote:
I believe Many Faces is probably stronger than Mogo but I don't know
that this has been proven.
Hi Don,
I'd bet on Mogo. In case nobody noticed, Crazy Stone won a match against
KCC Igo this summer, with 15 wins and 4 losses. The match was organized
by Hiroshi Yamashita. Th
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My point is that this probably won't happen in computer Go but it
happened long ago in computer chess.
- - Don
Can you point us to info about comparable agency for computer chess? Who funds
such an agency?
Thanks!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Fotland wrote:
> I agree. Computer go needs someone who will play large tournaments are
> publish results. I'm also curious how Many Faces would do against Mogo on
> 19x19 in a long match. Mogo is much better at endgames, and is much
> greedier
I agree. Computer go needs someone who will play large tournaments are
publish results. I'm also curious how Many Faces would do against Mogo on
19x19 in a long match. Mogo is much better at endgames, and is much
greedier, but Many Faces is much stronger tactically. Certainly if there
were rati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some people on this group have claimed that computer go is decades
behind computer chess.In many ways this is not true, the
perceptions in part is based on the fact that it's much harder to write
a go program that plays very well in human terms.
31 matches
Mail list logo
