omise to be kind
masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster
- Original Message
From: steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 8:18:34 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] erm...
two followups, and i'm sorry for not referenc
Nick Wedd wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, steve uurtamo
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> < snip >
>
>> to this end, if anyone wants to organize a 9x9 tournament on
>> kgs (i'm not sure how this is done) where computer players
>> are allowed (encouraged) to play, with cgos-like time contr
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
The correct answer should be: dan does not exist for board sizes other than
19. And it is impossible to define a consistent scale made of 30
levels for 9x9. Perhaps 9x9 has only 10 or 12 levels. Defining a step
in level as being a standard deviation ab
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, steve uurtamo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
< snip >
to this end, if anyone wants to organize a 9x9 tournament on
kgs (i'm not sure how this is done) where computer players
are allowed (encouraged) to play, with cgos-like time controls,
I think that only a few pe
two followups, and i'm sorry for not referencing the
original notes directly:
i) i agree that 9x9 has fewer standard deviations of
skill. there's simply less to be good at (ladders are
tiny, life and death can only be so large, the difference
between influence and territory is skewed, etc.). thi
Hi all,
this discussion about ratings and playing strength of Go programs
on 19x19 and 9x9 with and without handicap stones etc.
is exactly the field I try to find an approach in my tournaments!
Most classic Go programs were designed only to be as strong
as possible in 19x19 and seamed to be muc
Don Dailey wrote:
The assumption is that 1 Dan 19x19 = 1 Dan
9x9 and on average this will be true.
That is precisely my point. It is a very strong assumption because
19x19 has lots of things: joseki study, global board evaluation, etc.
that do not exist in 9x9. This assumption is only an a
Don Dailey wrote:
> you can still
judge the quality of your opponent by looking at his 19x19 KGS ranking.
Rather by looking at his real world ranking. A human real world rank may
be off by 1 while a human KGS rank may be off by 6 ranks.
--
robert jasiek
__
Darren Cook wrote:
>> 9x9 games is a bit silly. it doesn't actually capture any extra
>> information about the program, since there's no such thing as
>> a 9x9 rank to compare with/against, much less a dan rank.
>>
>
> I disagree. In my studies of 9x9, over a number of years, the human
> 19
> 9x9 games is a bit silly. it doesn't actually capture any extra
> information about the program, since there's no such thing as
> a 9x9 rank to compare with/against, much less a dan rank.
I disagree. In my studies of 9x9, over a number of years, the human
19x19 rank generally carries over to 9x
I would like to add that we are calibrating against 19x19 players. Even
though their ratings are based on 19x19 play we just want a mapping from
19x19 dan to 9x9 cgos. The assumption is that 1 Dan 19x19 = 1 Dan
9x9 and on average this will be true. We don't expect to get a
perfect table o
But it does have real meaning. People talk about Dan level 9x9 go
programs and so all I'm looking for is a way to instrument this in a
meaningful way.
If a 9x9 program is estimated to be 2 dan on CGOS, it means a typical 1
dan player will lose to it and a typical 3 dan player will beat it.
It
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
not to put too fine a point on it, but "estimating dan ranks" via
9x9 games is a bit silly. it doesn't actually capture any extra
information about the program, since there's no such thing as
a 9x9 rank to compare with/against, much less a dan rank.
I d
not to put too fine a point on it, but "estimating dan ranks" via
9x9 games is a bit silly. it doesn't actually capture any extra
information about the program, since there's no such thing as
a 9x9 rank to compare with/against, much less a dan rank.
ELO works well because it's strictly arbitrary
14 matches
Mail list logo
