L PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sylvain Gelly
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:52 AM
To: terry mcintyre; computer-go
Subject: Re: Re:[computer-go] MoGo
Hello Terry,
Sylvain,
Were you aware of this challenge from the American Go Association? The
following is from the latest AGA newsletter; you can se
It is a good idea to write a press release with the key points laid out in the
form of an article. Quote yourself in your press release - "Go Researcher
Sylvain Gelly said yadda yadda." Many published articles are almost direct
copies of press releases. This way, you can encourage more accurate
t one is to invite the journalist
> and to cook for them. They can than write how they liked the eating.
> Which is already a story about themselves.
>
> Chrilly
> - Original Message -
> From: Sylvain Gelly
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; compute
one is to invite the journalist and to cook for them.
They can than write how they liked the eating. Which is already a story about
themselves.
Chrilly
- Original Message -
From: Sylvain Gelly
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; computer-go
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: R
-Devices. When we started the project I got a mail, are you the Hydra
programmer. This made things certainly easier.
Chrilly
Original Message -
From: Sylvain Gelly
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; computer-go
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re:[computer-go] MoGo
Thank you Don.
I did not know that, I am not used to :-).
Then I'll stop worrying for these kind of things and stop trying to give
back the truth :).
Bye,
Sylvain
2007/4/4, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 10:52 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
> You should also know that we n
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 10:52 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
> You should also know that we never claimed that "MoGo plays 9x9 go
> near the level of a professional go player", which is of course false,
> and even if it was true should ask for many many experiments, and we
> would have never say that.
On 4/4/07, Sylvain Gelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course as experts, you should have noticed errors on this newsletter, as
e.g. MoGo developed by the inventors of UCT in hungary :-).
Yes, the text clearly showed that the guy didn't do his homework.
One (far-fetched) explanation might be b
Hello Terry,
Sylvain,
Were you aware of this challenge from the American Go Association? The
following is from the latest AGA newsletter; you can send corrections or
replies to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes I was aware, Roy Laird asked me to put MoGo on KGS to play these games,
and it is what I did.
This report is much appreciated. So perhaps such a match is interesting
after all.
Presumably, 4 dan would be a close match with alternating colors?
I'm surprised you think 7.5 is too much. Does that imply that you
think 6.5 is not enough and the correct komi should be 7.0 ?
- Don
On Tue, 20
ave a chance
to win 1 or 2. Maybe MoGo play black and no komi is a nice match.
Peter817
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:17 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: Re:[computer-go] MoGo
This article d
This article didn't specify the boardsize. This has no
chance of being interesting unless it's played on a 9x9
board.
If it is on a 19x19 board, it's pretty much a silly exhibition
match that has no point.
If it's on a 9x9 board, it starts to be more interesting, but
assuming that is the case
Sylvain,
Were you aware of this challenge from the American Go Association? The
following is from the latest AGA newsletter; you can send corrections or
replies to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GO ONLINE: MoGo -- No-Go, So-So or Uh-Oh?
Go has been called "The fruit fly of IT", and for a good reason --
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 15:22 -0400, John Tromp wrote:
> On 3/19/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm testing a future Anchor player for CGOS. I am calling
> > it FAT for Future Anchor Test!
> >
> > It plays fixed depth and I pre-calculated what level to make
> > it play at 1800 strengt
On 3/19/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm testing a future Anchor player for CGOS. I am calling
it FAT for Future Anchor Test!
It plays fixed depth and I pre-calculated what level to make
it play at 1800 strength. I came pretty close, Fat-25 is
playing at 1836 at the moment and do
I watched MoGo play a few games on KGS. I think it plays very nicely
most of the time. I find it hard to judge its strength, as it
occasionally does some strange things, but overall it plays a sound
game.
One thing that may make human players biased with regards to its
strength is its conservativ
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 10:46 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
> > It plays fixed depth and I pre-calculated what level to make
> > it play at 1800 strength. I came pretty close, Fat-25 is
> > playing at 1836 at the moment and doesn't require too much
> > CPU power. It's Lazarus scaled down to play fa
It plays fixed depth and I pre-calculated what level to make
it play at 1800 strength. I came pretty close, Fat-25 is
playing at 1836 at the moment and doesn't require too much
CPU power. It's Lazarus scaled down to play fast.
That is good then!
I threw in a gnuchess
gnuchess seems a stro
I'm testing a future Anchor player for CGOS. I am calling
it FAT for Future Anchor Test!
It plays fixed depth and I pre-calculated what level to make
it play at 1800 strength. I came pretty close, Fat-25 is
playing at 1836 at the moment and doesn't require too much
CPU power. It's Lazarus
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 19:09 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
> Hi Don,
>
> > I think what you are looking isn't a strong Anchor player, but
> > strong players who are always available.
>
> In some sense you are right. In fact, I was not talking about anchor
> with fixed rating, but "floating" anchor,
Hi Don,
I think what you are looking isn't a strong Anchor player, but
strong players who are always available.
In some sense you are right. In fact, I was not talking about anchor
with fixed rating, but "floating" anchor, which would be a player with
fixed strength, always connected. It is an
Hi Sylvain,
I think what you are looking isn't a strong Anchor player, but
strong players who are always available.
However, I do want to upgrade the Anchor player too, perhaps putting
up 2 Anchors. I will prepare a version of Lazarus - it will take a
few days. I'm not sure what my goal rating
2007/3/18, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm not so sure we need to have a really strong Anchor. The Anchor's
role is to prevent rating drift over the long term.
You are right about this Anchor's role. However, to be able to
accurately rate players, there is a need of opponents not too far fr
Hello Heikki,
2007/3/18, Heikki Levanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 01:09:27PM +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
> There is also the perspective of the 13x13 and 19x19 servers where (1)
> gnugo will be much stronger, (2) we can have easily handicaps.
Where are those? Are they used th
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 01:09:27PM +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
> There is also the perspective of the 13x13 and 19x19 servers where (1)
> gnugo will be much stronger, (2) we can have easily handicaps.
Where are those? Are they used the same way as cgos? I would like to see
what my MC does on a lar
I'm not so sure we need to have a really strong Anchor. The Anchor's
role is to prevent rating drift over the long term.It I turned
CGOS lose without any anchor, it could inflate or deflate over time
and that was the only reason I wanted to have an anchor.
However, it makes sense for an Anch
Hello Don, Nick, Magnus,
I here answer the 3 previous emails.
2007/3/18, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Another possible candidate is Mogo, running at 3K play-outs, like the
version running on CGOS right now.
I thought about that, the good thing is the resources taken (between
0.6 and 0.3 s
Quoting Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Do you think any version of gnugo is suitable as an anchor?
My problem with Gnugo is that it might be too deterministic. It is in general
easier to overfit the parameters to gnugo than an MC-program. But perhaps the
gnugo team could make a version that at
This email had a lot of redundancy in it! I accidently sent
it off before I was through composing it. I meant to delete
my entire 3rd paragraph since the info was covered in the 2nd.
- Don
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 21:32 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 18:45 -0500, Nick Apperson w
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 18:45 -0500, Nick Apperson wrote:
> one concern i have is that within a family of programs (such as MC)
> the estimated skill differences are overestimated. I would really
> like to see an anchor that uses a different technique. I'm not
> offering a solution. Thoughts?
On
one concern i have is that within a family of programs (such as MC) the
estimated skill differences are overestimated. I would really like to see
an anchor that uses a different technique. I'm not offering a solution.
Thoughts?
On 3/17/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 23:32 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
> Hi Don,
>
> > I remember when CGOS first came up, I expected it to be a
> > few years before a program could achieve 2000.0 on the CGOS
> > scale.
> I hope you are more optimistic on the future.
I thought I was just being realistic, based
32 matches
Mail list logo
