> maybe it's my poor old brain, but the middle of the game is so
> complicated (for me), that after some amount of time i get
> diminishing returns. it gets *really* complicated. it's not just
> reading (lookahead), it's judgement as to how this particular line of
> battle will have an effect o
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Ray Tayek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 4:18 am
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
>
> also i suspect that at least 33% of the moves (at my 1-dan level)
> are
> wrong (wha
Don,
I agree that more time generally leads to better moves. Also in Go.
Where I think Go differs from Chess is the qualitative difference
between a move that was thought about for 10 sec. or 2 hrs. is much
smaller in Go than in Chess. And that's really because of the
different nature of
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 13:34 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
> Don,
>
> I agree that more time generally leads to better moves. Also in Go.
> Where I think Go differs from Chess is the qualitative difference
> between a move that was thought about for 10 sec. or 2 hrs. is much
> smaller in Go than in
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By the way, can I assume that in world champion GO matches they use
> fast time controls because long time controls don't help in Go?
Don probably had his tongue in cheek when he typed that, but according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisei , games in th
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 11:32 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
> From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > By the way, can I assume that in world champion GO matches they use
> > fast time controls because long time controls don't help in Go?
>
> Don probably had his tongue in cheek when he typed tha
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 7:02 pm
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
>
> By the way, can I assume that in world champion GO matches they use
> fast time con
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 9:23 pm
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
> Mark Boon pointed out the problem of conceptual barriers. I
> just lack some of the concepts that 7d players
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 21:23 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Of course time helps. I guess the difference between 8 hours time and
> 1 hour time gives an advantage of about 13 points (1 amateur grade)
> at
> the top professional level, which will probably swing the winning
> percentage from 50%
> I don't have any reason to believe
> this only applies to chess but not other games.
the more you play go, i think the more you will come to
believe that chess and go are not remotely similar,
and things that you've learned about chess do not
necessarily have direct analogues in go. (or more im
A lot of this interesting discussion has been about whether humans can make use
of extra time. Some participants ( such as Dave Devos ) believe that, after a
certain point, humans cannot
improve their rank, at least not linearly with respect to time alloted. Fair
enough; we humans require sleep,
It looks like computers are scalable - I know my UCT based program
responds
quite well to extra time.
So to make the test of whether humans are scalable, we simply do this:
1. Get a strong scalable go program.
2. Measure it's skill at various time controls.
3. Pit humans (who are roughly eq
> > If you guys are correct thinking the nature of the game is such that
> > humans cannot improve with time, then the computers will pull
> > ahead more and more at longer time controls.
let's adjust this to avoid the strawman and say that the counter-argument
is that humans cannot improve m
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 15:50 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
> i think that computers will tap out and no longer be able to gain ELO
> after some (unknown) amount of doubling of thinking time. :)
Yes, we heard that argument for years in computer chess and it never
happened.
Do you have some kind of
Le dimanche 21 janvier 2007 19:02, Don Dailey a écrit :
> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 13:34 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
> > To move
> > up 200 ELO points in Go is usually not achieved by looking at more
> > positions but by acquiring new concepts. To acquire a new concept in
> > just a few hours is a r
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 15:50 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
> > > If you guys are correct thinking the nature of the game is such
> that
> > > humans cannot improve with time, then the computers will pull
> > > ahead more and more at longer time controls.
>
> let's adjust this to avoid the strawm
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 03:43 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> The few games i played against mogobot on 19x19 shows that it does not
> "know" overconcentration. And i can safely bet that increasing
> thinking
> time will not solve this,
By definition, a scalable program can solve all problems so
y
At 03:43 AM 1/21/2007, you wrote:
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Ray Tayek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 4:18 am
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
>
> also i suspect that at least 33% of the moves (at m
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 03:43 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> The few games i played against mogobot on 19x19 shows that it does not
> "know" overconcentration. And i can safely bet that increasing
> thinking time will not solve this,
>By definition, a scalabl
the thing about blunders is that frequently one player making ablunder
causes the other player to make one as well. For instance if one player
plays somewhere that can be ignored. Frequently the other player will not
ignore it. BOth are making blunders relative to perfect strategy but it is
ver
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 20:29 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
> From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 03:43 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> > The few games i played against mogobot on 19x19 shows that it does
> not
> > "know" overconcentration. And i can safely bet that increa
At 09:38 PM 1/21/2007, you wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 20:29 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
...
> Most programs reach scalability limits at some point. ...
Where most people go wrong is to assume that for a computer to beat
a human it must be able to understand every single thing a human does
bu
22 matches
Mail list logo
