No please.
I use my email client, I sort them, I store them I'm
happy with it.
Personally, I will not be able to read the forum at
work. It will be the difference between reading and
not reading the list.
I want to choose which info will push me, and forget.
I don't want to log into a forum eve
Thanks to all those who have pointed out errors in my report at
http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/23/index.html
Weston Markham wrote
> Should one of those "Open"s be "Formal"?
Jason House wrote
> The open division results table is completely wrong
> Formal division round 2 seems to have skipped
2007/2/6, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I am pleased to find that people read my reports so carefully, and that
they report my errors to me. I have now, I hope, removed all these
errors, and uploaded the corrected version. I am particularly grateful
for the analysis supplied by Sanghyeon Seo,
I have the problem that my DSL provider disconnects me and give me a new
IP-adress. When that happens my programs lose on time in a similar to your
problem description. My solution is to disconnect/connect my Internet and CGOS
connection manually often enough. I also had some problems with lag but
This is happening everyday for me. My IP is not changing. I don't
think it's a lag issue. But I could be wrong. Is it possible that
there is a bug in the Windows TCL interpreter? How many other people
out there are running TCL on Windows for cgos?
On 2/6/07, Magnus Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED
To who it may concern:
ggexp appears to be losing all of it's games on time.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Eduardo Sabbatella wrote:
No please.
I use my email client, I sort them, I store them I'm
happy with it.
Personally, I will not be able to read the forum at
work. It will be the difference between reading and
not reading the list.
I want to choose which info will push me, and forget.
I don'
Upon continuing to learn about the general Monte Carlo field, I've found
it seems there is a general consensus in this community about a
distinction between Monte Carlo (MC) and what appears to be commonly
called Quasi Monte Carlo (QMC). MC is defined as using
random/pseudo-random distributions a
I dont understand how you can reduce the variance of monte-carlo sampling,
given a simulation can return either 0(loss) or 1(win).
Maybe it means trying to have mean values that are closer to 0 or 1 ?
- Message d'origine
De : Matt Gokey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : computer-go
Envoyé le : Ma
It seems that there are at least three cases:
1: Choosing a random move from a uniform distribution
2: Choosing a random move from a nonuniform distribution (patterns etc.)
3: Choosing a move taking into account what has been chosen before
The concensus seems to be that numbers 1 and 2 are MC and
I just checked this for January and here are the statics:
When playing white ggexp played:
1087 games
295 losses
8 of these were time losses.
When playing black ggexp played
1036 games
341 losses
17 losses
So I don't see that it's losing all
It lost several games in a row on time at the time that I sent that
message. Obviously, it can't have lost ALL of it's games and still
attained an 1800 rating.
On 2/6/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just checked this for January and here are the statics:
When playing white ggexp
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
I just checked this for January and here are the statics:
When playing white ggexp played:
1087 games
295 losses
8 of these were time losses.
When playing black ggexp played
1036 games
341 losses
17 losses
But most
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 14:16 -0500, Chris Fant wrote:
> It lost several games in a row on time at the time that I sent that
> message. Obviously, it can't have lost ALL of it's games and still
> attained an 1800 rating.
I assumed that you meant that of all the games it lost, they were
mostly due
ivan dubois wrote:
I dont understand how you can reduce the variance of monte-carlo sampling,
given a simulation can return either 0(loss) or 1(win).
Maybe it means trying to have mean values that are closer to 0 or 1 ?
Well strictly speaking I agree the standard models don't fit that well
- t
It seems that there are at least three cases:
1: Choosing a random move from a uniform distribution
2: Choosing a random move from a nonuniform distribution (patterns etc.)
3: Choosing a move taking into account what has been chosen before
The concensus seems to be that numbers 1 and 2 are MC a
Tapani Raiko wrote:
It seems that there are at least three cases:
1: Choosing a random move from a uniform distribution
2: Choosing a random move from a nonuniform distribution (patterns etc.)
3: Choosing a move taking into account what has been chosen before
The concensus seems to be that numb
It seems to me, the fundamental reason MC go (regardless of details)
works as it does is because it is the only search method (at least that
I am aware of) that has found a way to manage the evaluation problem.
Evaluation is not as problematic because MC goes to the bitter end
where the status is
I have been reading this list for nearly a year now and it is very discouraging
to receive so much criticism for my first post.
The yahoo groups was merely an example to show how easy it is to get a forum
started. I also agree that yahoo appends too much spam to its forums and I am
sure there a
19 matches
Mail list logo
