Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

erent rule sets for small boards(2-5) in different first moves available in net like to see that. t. hArri - Original Message - From: "Don Dailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "computer-go" Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Solving

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

On 11/12/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, on 2x2 I get a consistent result now that I implemented PSK. It > gives the same result with SSK too. It's a 1 point win for the first > player. I'm not sure this is in agreement with other peoples > findings. But it appears to be c

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

Ok, on 2x2 I get a consistent result now that I implemented PSK. It gives the same result with SSK too. It's a 1 point win for the first player. I'm not sure this is in agreement with other peoples findings. But it appears to be consistent.I can work my way through the game and it alw

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

Hi Harri, I don't see a way to do anything larger than 5x5 as a table - and 5x5 is pushing it. Even if we had an arbitrary amount of memory it would take a vast amount of time to enumerate all the positions for anything larger than 5x5. But I am more optimistic about some kind of practical solv

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

5x5 was solved with a massive brute force search approach. Memory was used for large hash tables and endgames were scored early using Bensons algorithm, otherwise it would not have been feasible from what I understand. Yes it was "proof" level paper, doing something lot less mathematically val

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

I am definitely interested in this.The approach that might be interesting is a hybrid solver. I do not think the endgame database approach is very useful beyond 4x4 or possibly 5x5.Even if it's possible it's not particularly interesting except as an engineering feat. 5x5 was solved wit

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

> Has anyone did this before or has anybody thoughts about this? I have done that for 4*4 and 3*3, my code is not in shape that it could be used 5*5 but have high believes it is anyway possible used for 6*6 some day. But this was discussed in this group earlier and nothing new has occurred since

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

Figured that would be part of the cleaning phase before the evaluation. It's a lot easier to permute the entire set than it is to generate all legal ones at first (at least with smaller sizes). -Josh On 11/7/07, John Tromp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just ran my perm application for 4x4 and

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

> I just ran my perm application for 4x4 and it's reporting > 43,046,721 unique board states and took 2m6.980s. Will try for 5 and 6. seems you're computing 3**(n*n) 3**16 = 43046721 3**25 = 847288609443 3**36 = 150094635296999121 don't you want to exclude illegal positions? -john

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

I just ran my perm application for 4x4 and it's reporting 43,046,721 unique board states and took 2m6.980s. Will try for 5 and 6. -Josh ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

Álvaro Begué wrote: > > > On 11/7/07, *Don Dailey* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > [...] > To go beyond 5x5, say 7x7 would require an endgame table with 3**49 > entries or 239299329230617529590083 entries. This can be reduced by > about 8x if you remo

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

On 11/7/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > To go beyond 5x5, say 7x7 would require an endgame table with 3**49 > entries or 239299329230617529590083 entries. This can be reduced by > about 8x if you remove symmetrically equivalent positions.This is > pretty intractable, won

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

I've put a lot of thought into this. 5x5 is about the largest feasible board size (currently) for creating an "endgame database" which is a table of all possible positions with the resulting score.I don't know if anyone has done this, but I know that this board size can be solved with brute f

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

On 11/7/07, Joshua Shriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You could go the route chess does with egtbs. That won't work for go. First of all, chess and checkers are games where the position on the board becomes simpler at the end of the game, so many games will end up converging on positions for

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

You could go the route chess does with egtbs. First permutate every possible board with both stones, and start removing pieces one at a time. I wrote a permutation tool, but even with 3 and 4 size board the end data file was huge. -Josh On 11/7/07, Ben Lambrechts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

This was posted a while ago on here by Terry Here are the links: http://senseis.xmp.net/?7x7BestPlay http://erikvanderwerf.tengen.nl/5x5/5x5solved.html I hope that is a little bit helpful... On 11/7/07, Ben Lambrechts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I want to create a perfect player on boar

Re: [computer-go] Solving Go

I think how 5x5 was solved was part of a thesis. I don't have the URL or author handy. 7x7 is semi-solved by a bunch of dans, but no formal proof of its correctness is available. I believe that past work used brute force alpha-beta with transposition tables. 5x5 was made tractable by detecting