[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. Don's scalability argument states that ELO gain is proportional
to time doubling.
For me scalable use of time implies that time translates into depth.
The extra depth is:
m - m0 = log(2)/log(b).
So if the ELO gain for time doubling in Chess equals 100 over a wi
Hi Matt,
On 1/25/07, Matt Gokey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But just because a rule of thumb holds for Chess doesn't mean it does
for Go. Of course I could be wrong, but I was just trying to introduce
reasonable doubt, since Don always seems so sure of himself ;-)
If I may venture trying to re
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 03:27 -0600, Matt Gokey wrote:
> Learning these skills while thinking about a particular game's next
> move
> is not generally practical and even if possible would presumably
> require
> enormous extra time. Yet without this ability you are left with a
> massively rapid exp
Go, being a matter of efficiency over one's opponent, may be even more
susceptible to improvement via many small improvements over many moves than is
chess. As long as you don't leave weak shapes behind, picking up a point here,
a point there at a slightly faster rate than your opponent will giv
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 08:23 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
> Go, being a matter of efficiency over one's opponent, may be even more
> susceptible to improvement via many small improvements over many moves
> than is chess. As long as you don't leave weak shapes behind, picking
> up a point here, a poi
Terry,
Where's the notion that through small increments, there is no reasonable path
from a house 3 bedroom house to a 10 story building? Isn't the consistency of
the assumption set around how a house is designed and built fundamentally (as
in pardigm-ally) different than that of how designing
On 1/25/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also had a difficult time producing a player that was less than
200 ELO stronger than a random player. Even a single play-out,
which seems hardly enough to discriminate between moves, is
enormously stronger than a random player.It was pr
ofcourse you are correct, P = 1.0 is just the random player. Obviously the
ELO as a function of P is going to be continuous. So, being really close to
P=1.0 will make for a player that is only very slightly better than random.
I think it is also interesting to consider a player worse than rando
So what would it take to get corporate sponsorship of the sort which
drove the chess computing field? Where is the Go equivalent of Deep
Thought?
Near as I can tell, David Doshay's Sluggo is the only large-scale
parallel effort. Mogo uses at most 4 CPUs. What might be accomplished
with one of the
I am writing my program to scale to n processors because I think that is the
direction hardware is headed. However, I think clever programming will do
more than computational power with go.
On 1/25/07, terry mcintyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So what would it take to get corporate sponsorship
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 17:41 +, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
> 0. with probably P, play a random move (using the same selection
> methodology as the random player)
>
>
>1. play 1 random game.
>
>2. If black wins, play one of the first N black moves in
> t
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 12:17 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
> I am writing my program to scale to n processors because I think that
> is the direction hardware is headed. However, I think clever
> programming will do more than computational power with go.
I take the point of view that clever programm
On 25, Jan 2007, at 10:14 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
So what would it take to get corporate sponsorship of the sort which
drove the chess computing field? Where is the Go equivalent of Deep
Thought?
The Japanese Govt and industrial sponsorship of the Fifth Generation
Project, which did have pl
I don't rememeber citing you as saying that. My however was in reference to
myself.
On 1/25/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 12:17 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
> I am writing my program to scale to n processors because I think that
> is the direction hardware is h
Have you considered refocusing towards MC Go?
On 1/25/07, David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 25, Jan 2007, at 10:14 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
> So what would it take to get corporate sponsorship of the sort which
> drove the chess computing field? Where is the Go equivalent of Deep
>
We are thinking about it, but others have code that is far ahead
of whatever our first effort is likely to produce, so I favor a
collaboration.
We are still investigating behavior that we do not expect from
SlugGo, and we are working on a number of fronts to move
from where we have been (using mu
That was just a statement, "I have never advocated WASTING power" to
help
make it clear that I believe in squeezing the most out of each cpu
cycles,
not just making some algorithm as fast as it can be but also using the
best algorithms.
I did not take your post as some kind of contradictory stat
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Hi Matt,
On 1/25/07, Matt Gokey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But just because a rule of thumb holds for Chess doesn't mean it does
for Go. Of course I could be wrong, but I was just trying to introduce
reasonable doubt, since Don always seems so sure of himself ;-)
If I
Don Dailey wrote:
You are still missing the point.
I can say the same of you.
I merely am raising a question about the assertion that doubling of
_human_ thinking time results in _linear_ improvements. I am not
claiming that there is no improvement - never have. I am not claiming
that every
let's step back a bit and define terms. How do we define "a linear improvement
in Go"?
Would that be a linear increase in ELO points, or what?
Terry McIntyre
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on
terry mcintyre wrote:
let's step back a bit and define terms. How do we define "a linear
improvement in Go"?
Don can correct me if I'm wrong,
The hypothesis is: For any player rating each doubling of thinking time
creates a rating increase by a fixed constant value.
Would that be a linear
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 20:16 -0600, Matt Gokey wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > You are still missing the point.
> I can say the same of you.
>
> I merely am raising a question about the assertion that doubling of
> _human_ thinking time results in _linear_ improvements. I am not
> claiming that t
Matt Gokey wrote:
I was trying to compare a different relationship related to the
branching factor and other characteristics of Go to capacity of human
logical reasoning and thinking. The idea being to suggest a possible
explanation for why Go may be qualitatively different than Chess in this
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 21:44 -0600, Matt Gokey wrote:
> Let me expand on this. Perhaps due to the nature of Go and
> the human style learning needed to judge some moves and positions to
> be
> advantageous many (like 20-60+) stones out with possible interplay
> between groups (a tree which cannot p
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 21:40 -0600, Matt Gokey wrote:
> terry mcintyre wrote:
> > let's step back a bit and define terms. How do we define "a linear
> > improvement in Go"?
> Don can correct me if I'm wrong,
>
> The hypothesis is: For any player rating each doubling of thinking time
> creates a r
Hi Don,
On 1/25/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's the thought - due
> to
> the nature of go the increases might not be linear nor consistent
> between players of different strengths. I hesitate to venture what
> others believe, but it seems based on Ray's and Mark's and others'
26 matches
Mail list logo
