Hello,
I recently added a feature to MoGo that allows it to "accept a pass" (I mean
pass after the opponent pass) even far from the end of the game. It is to be
gentler against human (not fill every intersection :)). So now there is a non
trivial dead string analysis.
Looking at the games again
>> I assume in Go the difference is also a very large handicap.
> in any case, i think that the difference is probably much larger than just
> one or two stones. :)
It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will accept games play with God
even if bet his life.
When in limited local fighti
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 11:10 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
> Looking at the games against humans, I saw that sometimes the human does not
> accept the dead strings MoGo proposes and then allow a score to the game
> which is not the real score. I have undersood that if the 2 opponents do not
> It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will
> accept games play with God even if bet his life.
wow. i thought that there were at least two
stones worth of slack in the opening, and another
two in ko fighting. :)
> When in limited local fighting like TumeGo, Pro
> plays just like God.
I would not trust this. Usually, masters cannot be objective and fair
when they are referring to their own playing ability.
- Don
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 19:35 +0900, igo wrote:
> >> I assume in Go the difference is also a very large handicap.
> > in any case, i think that the difference is prob
And just to add to this, I'm sure their tune would change if the bet
was really for their life.
- Don
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 07:23 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> I would not trust this. Usually, masters cannot be objective and fair
> when they are referring to their own playing ability.
>
> - Don
We don't really know how good masters play... They are
the best we know, but perhaps its tooo far from the
perfect game.
Perhaps the perfect 19x19 game starts in the center.
--- Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> And just to add to this, I'm sure their tune would
> change if the bet
> w
I assume in Go the difference is also a very large handicap.
in any case, i think that the difference is probably much larger than
just one or two stones. :)
It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will accept games play with
God even if bet his life.
When in limited local fightin
On 27-nov-06, at 08:35, igo wrote:
It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will accept games
play with God even if bet his life.
I don't know if that's a generally accpted estimate. But I know that
Otake Hideo once said he'd bet his life with 4 stones against God. He
also added he
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 07:35:58PM +0900, igo wrote:
> It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will accept games play
> with God even if bet his life.
isn't there more than 4 stones difference between a 1-dan pro and a
9-dan pro? It might be that the all best pros might be 4 stones below a
It seems that pro have very high self esteem. ;-)
Until be create a pro-beating-go-engine :-D
> Otake Hideo once said he'd bet his life with 4
> stones against God. He
> also added he wasn't so sure he'd win but that he
> had his pride too.
__
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will
accept games play with God even if bet his life.
wow. i thought that there were at least two
stones worth of slack in the opening, and another
two in ko fighting. :)
It seems that pro have very high self esteem. ;-)
Until be create a pro-beating-go-engine :-D
Otake Hideo once said he'd bet his life with 4
stones against God. He
also added he wasn't so sure he'd win but that he
had his
This self-esteem is necessary for becoming a top-player (in any kind o
Computer stupidity? How about how GNUGo has no problem invading under my 4,4
stone, but refuses to invade under my 5,5 stones? I assume this is because
there is a joseki entry for 4,4, but none for 5,5 openings. Attached is a
rather silly game I played against GNUGo exploiting this fact (I will ad
> >wow. i thought that there were at least two
> >stones worth of slack in the opening, and another
> >two in ko fighting. :)
>
> Seems unlikely. I can't imagine two competent
> players, say 1p or
> better, coming out of the opening with one of them
> having a two-stone
> lead.
one of them i
> > And, the right to win all ko fights without
> > having to fight them
> > is only worth half a stone.
>
> uh, that depends upon what the kos are for.
and actually, what i meant was that its threats
might be so complicated that they would be
ignored.
s.
___
Hi Sylvain,
FWIW, I have also observed this behavior recently in a rated game
against my bot ggexp and it seems actually possible to cheat bots on
KGS, even when kgs-genmove_cleanup is implemented (which is the case
for GNU Go and clones). I don't have the logs anymore, but I clearly
recall seein
A good point to consider - is "God" actively trying to confuse his
opponent and complicate things, or is he simply playing objectively best
moves?
- Don
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 07:39 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
> > >wow. i thought that there were at least two
> > >stones worth of slack in the open
The December 2006 KGS computer Go tournament will be next Sunday,
December 3rd, in the European morning and Asian evening,
starting at 09:00 UTC and ending at about 14:00 UTC.
Both divisions will be five-round Swiss, and use 19x19 boards with 28
minutes sudden death, Chinese rules, and 7.5 poin
> A good point to consider - is "God" actively trying
> to confuse his
> opponent and complicate things, or is he simply
> playing objectively best
> moves?
good question. if his goal is to win with zero
handicap, all he has to do is pick a branch that
ends with a win for, say, W. if he is start
I've often wondered how I would program a computer to play a game, chess
or go,
if I had perfect information about the game.How do you make it more
difficult
to win against a fallible opponent?
I assume that in many positions there are more than 1 maximizing move.
I would of
course restrict th
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:59:30PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> A good point to consider - is "God" actively trying to confuse his
> opponent and complicate things, or is he simply playing objectively best
> moves?
>
I have heard this terminology somewhere, but can't remember where:
A "god" plays
> I guess you would simply steer towards positions
> where the computer had
> lot's of "good" moves and the opponent had very few
> "good" moves.
this is essentially the same thing -- if you play
in a branch where the highest percentage of moves
lead to a win for you, then this means that your
> But a "god" will win over the
> "devil", as he will not
> fall in any of the traps, but can use the suboptimal
> play spent in
> setting those up.
actually, whomever is slated to win with perfect play
(1st or 2nd player) will win, because "setting up
traps" isn't necessarily inefficient -- it ju
A good "devil" tries to win by MORE than he deserves and will
try to win in a losing position.
I have heard this terminology before and my understanding was
that a devil still plays a perfect game, he just tries to be
deceptive about it.
I don't see any point in not playing perfect if you can u
At 05:59 AM 11/27/2006, you wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 07:35:58PM +0900, igo wrote:
> It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will accept games play
> with God even if bet his life.
isn't there more than 4 stones difference between a 1-dan pro and a
9-dan pro? It might be that the all
Don (and others),
Depending upon your definition of God, I think most of the "God"
conversation is kind of silly.
Given He is omnipotent, he has the ability to alter one of His created entities
such that it is not possible to beat Him PRIOR to casting His reply as
white. The alteration cou
Le lundi 27 novembre 2006 16:36, Steven Clark a écrit :
> Computer stupidity? How about how GNUGo has no problem invading under my 4,4
> stone, but refuses to invade under my 5,5 stones? I assume this is because
> there is a joseki entry for 4,4, but none for 5,5 openings. Attached is a
> rather si
Jim,
When we say "God" we really mean "omniscient player" and I don't attach
any omniscience other than pure GO skill.It's just a convenient way
of saying this, but it is misleading because it conjures up some of the
factors you mention.
> Finally, what is an objectively best move?
That's e
In the second game Fritz against Kramnik Fritz played strategically very
poor (or Kramnik very strong), Kramnik avoided a 3-times repetition "offer"
of Fritz, but at the end Kramnik missed an easy to see mate in 1!! and lost
very badly. Thats the end of the match. He will not be able to recover
>> > It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will accept games play
>> > with God even if bet his life.
> ...
> iirc it is 1/3 of a stone betwen pro-dan ranks.
I'm glad somebody brought that up. When pros talk about 2-3 stones they
are talking 6-9 ranks, meaning "god" (i.e. perfect play) is
If anyone's interested in digging through our C++ code, here it is:
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/go/
Peter Drake
Assistant Professor of Computer Science
Lewis & Clark College
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@com
The preliminary advert below is not precisely for a position in computer Go
but maybe still of interest to someone on the list. Essential is experience
in high performance computing and a research topic which is somehow in
bioinformatics (hardly anyone on this list) or math, e.g. combinatorial gam
33 matches
Mail list logo
