Hi,
It just build the tree as usual, thinking as the opponent.
2007/11/6, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Could Sylvain (or anyone who knows) talk about MoGo's pondering
> strategy? Does it just build the tree as usual or does it speculate
> on some number of moves and hope that the opponent
I had build an Monte-Carlo GO-Engine (GOMonCy) wich uses the Japanese
scoring system. It reached a win rate against GnuGO 3.6 level 10 of
stable 50%-52%. I used territorry-statistics about the Monte-Carlo
outcomes. You get a probability for every field telling you who is the
owner. It works quite
Very odd! How large was the database evalgo.kit created?
The kit creates sqlite3 version 3 databases and they should all be
compatible.
The only issue I can imagine is that the kit perhaps has a 64 bit
version of the library
and you have a 32 bit linux.But I'm pretty sure that would have
AnchorMan uses that in KGS mode - it will pass quite early sometimes and
mark dead stones based on the territory statistics you are talking
about.
So I assume the play-outs are chinese and the move selection is the same
as our bots except you won't move into an intersection that is owned by
eit
The play-outs are japanese as well while the move selection is
probably the
same (influenced by the work of Rémi Coulom and the MoGo team) as yours. The
urgencies of fields that are not of special interest during the move-selection
are biased according to the territory statistics. The urgencies der
On Nov 6, 2007 10:30 AM, Lars Schäfers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;)
It's not a bad dream. That kind of thing could help spur development of
good ways to handle Japanese scoring. I fear that programs which are weak
would
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:30 +0100, Lars Schäfers wrote:
>
> By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;)
What formal and automatable Japanese ruleset are you proposing? A
computer implementation would also lend credibility.
-Jeff
__
> By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;)
>
>
> Lars
>
Hi Lars,
I don't want to get too philosophical here and start another "rules
debate" so I'll start by saying that I'm not that interested in rules as
such. It's way more interesting to me to focus on play
Hello Jeff,
as far as I know there don't exist any formal and automatable japanese
ruleset.
I would propose the GnuGO scoring as a referee. Perhaps it's possible
to ask the two bots which stones they think are dead or in seki.
If they don't agree GnuGO will decide who had won. This would perhaps
b
Lars,
If I do anything to CGOS it would be handicap games. But I think your
suggestion is sensible for Japanese scoring.GnuGo won't score
perfectly every time, but I understand it is rarely incorrect.
Does anyone have statistics on how well GnuGo scores professional 19x19
games?
-
Lars said:
> I had build an Monte-Carlo GO-Engine (GOMonCy) wich uses the Japanese
> scoring system. It reached a win rate against GnuGO 3.6 level 10 of
> stable 50%-52%. I used territorry-statistics about the Monte-Carlo
> outcomes. You get a probability for every field telling you who is the
> o
> How do you score Japanese
> games correctly in an automated way in the face of program disputes?
You let the disputant resume playing until the difficulty is resolved,
with his competitor given the option of responding whenever he thinks
necessary. Hence my suggestion as a way of resolving matte
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Lars said:
I had build an Monte-Carlo GO-Engine (GOMonCy) wich uses the Japanese
scoring system. It reached a win rate against GnuGO 3.6 level 10 of
stable 50%-52%. I used territorry-statistics about the Monte-Carlo
outcomes. You get a pr
Akihiro has kindly agreed for us to film his talk and make it available. I
should be able to put it online somewhere - I will let you know when this is
done.
Best,
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adrian Petrescu
Sent: 05 November 2007 18:14
To: [EMAIL
Great work Dave! Look forward to seeing it.
-Josh
On 11/6/07, David Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Akihiro has kindly agreed for us to film his talk and make it available. I
> should be able to put it online somewhere – I will let you know when this is
> done.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> David
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 18:27 +0100, Lars Schäfers wrote:
> Hello Jeff,
>
> as far as I know there don't exist any formal and automatable japanese
> ruleset.
> I would propose the GnuGO scoring as a referee.
I don't see what is gained by converting CGOS to Japanese rules. You
lose the ability for
Don Dailey wrote:
Lars,
If I do anything to CGOS it would be handicap games. But I think your
suggestion is sensible for Japanese scoring.GnuGo won't score
perfectly every time, but I understand it is rarely incorrect.
Does anyone have statistics on how well GnuGo scores professio
I apologize in advance to list members that are sick of this topic, but
if people keep on bringing up these fallacious arguments, I'm going to
keep on responding to them.
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:09 -0500, Jason House wrote:
> Having run a "dumb" bot on KGS in the past, I became sensitive to user
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:55 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Yes, I agree with your points.Well behaved on CGOS means that your
> bot will resign as soon as it knows it's losing.
I think when a bot should resign is a matter of personal preference. I
myself prefer to see games played o
On Nov 6, 2007 4:34 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Territory scoring doesn't make the game end any sooner, it just
> penalizes you for not doing so.
Right. In close games, the decision to pass is non-trivial. If protecting
against an invasion causes a loss, then the invasion must
Hi Jeff,
Yes, I agree with your points.Well behaved on CGOS means that your
bot will resign as soon as it knows it's losing.
But against humans it should technically be the same, but isn't.When
playing against humans a bot needs to be able to mark dead groups.
In my opinion time control
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 17:21 -0500, Jason House wrote:
> Right. In close games, the decision to pass is non-trivial. If
> protecting against an invasion causes a loss, then the invasion must
> be left open. This type of behavior is human-like. The only real
> exception is that weak humans like m
Personally, I'm ignorant on the subtle nature of Japanese rules. I look it
as territory scoring instead of area scoring. Area scoring has the nice
side effect that people can and should stop playing a game once all
territory is decided.
Having run a "dumb" bot on KGS in the past, I became sensit
i wonder what is known about the set of unconditionally
dead and unconditionally living groups. there must be
something like a small and extremely fast mechanism for
this. what is everyone using? i mean a mechanism that
is independent of any fancy data structure that you would
have incrementally
Sounds like you are describing Benson safety. It's quite fast. The
trick is correctly implementing it.
On 11/6/07, steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i wonder what is known about the set of unconditionally
> dead and unconditionally living groups. there must be
> something like a small
Ok, this is my last post on this topic for a while, promise.
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 17:21 -0500, Jason House wrote:
> I think having a way to generate a lot of games to test this style of
> behavior is helpful. I really care little about the rules, except
> that it provides a mechanism to encourag
Hi Jason,
A few comments.
Area scoring is what CGOS does, Territory scoring is Japanese.
Territory scoring doesn't make the game end any sooner, it just
penalizes you for not doing so.
I like the concept of not playing the game out to the bitter end but you
can't stop players from doing
>
>the idea is: identify at least one stone from every unconditionally
>living and every unconditionally dead group on the board, and
>report them as dead or alive.
It can be done very fast, but the problem is that in a typical
endgame board under Japanese rules, the number of unconditionally
a
>
>the idea is: identify at least one stone from every unconditionally
>living and every unconditionally dead group on the board, and
>report them as dead or alive.
It can be done very fast, but the problem is that in a typical
endgame board under Japanese rules, the number of unconditionally
a
Lars Schäfers wrote:
> I would propose the GnuGO scoring as a referee. Perhaps it's possible
> to ask the two bots which stones they think are dead or in seki.
> If they don't agree GnuGO will decide who had won. This would perhaps
> be an advantage for GnuGO playing on CGOS but show me a 9x9 game
At 03:50 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
... in a typical
endgame board under Japanese rules, the number of unconditionally
alive stones is zero.
maybe for pro games. for amatuer 1-kyu to 10-kyu games, i suspect
that after about 1/2 of the moves in the entire game have been made,
enough groups are a
At 05:22 PM 11/6/2007, Ray Tayek wrote:
>At 03:50 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>>... in a typical
>>endgame board under Japanese rules, the number of unconditionally
>>alive stones is zero.
>
>maybe for pro games. for amatuer 1-kyu to 10-kyu games, i suspect that after
>about 1/2 of the moves in the e
At 05:22 PM 11/6/2007, Ray Tayek wrote:
>At 03:50 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>>... in a typical
>>endgame board under Japanese rules, the number of unconditionally
>>alive stones is zero.
>
>maybe for pro games. for amatuer 1-kyu to 10-kyu games, i suspect that after
>about 1/2 of the moves in the e
Folks...
First, let me say how much pleasure my reading of this list has given
me. I love that folks are out there cranking on this problem. Truly,
it's one of the great problems.
I have a rather strange request. I am a statistical idiot, in both
senses of 'statistical'. After scrolling
>Am I making *any* sense? If so, you may need some sort of psychiatric help,
>or alternatively, you could do me the favor of explaining how to ask for what
>I want or even how to actually get it. :)
Most computer applications use uniform randomness, but it sounds like
what you want is normall
It sounds like you're frustrated, so here's a few lines of C code
that'll do about what you describe. Note that the use of large values
for the standard deviation will make the code go very slow from
repetitive looping. The divide by 10 is to make it not be too slow with
a degree of randomness of
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Mike Hill wrote:
int choose( int range, int degree-of-randomness)
Returns an integer in [0-range] distributed depending on the value of
degree-of-randomness. At degree-of-randomness 100, I want the distribution
to be uniform. At degree-of-randomness 0, I want the distr
At 07:03 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
...
Returns an integer in [0-range] distributed depending on the value
of degree-of-randomness. At degree-of-randomness 100, I want the
distribution to be uniform. At degree-of-randomness 0, I want the
distribution to be -- I don't even know what to call th
Stefan Mertin wrote:
I am using GnuGo scoring in my tournaments.
But GnuGo 3.7.10 mostly doesn´t score seki correctly,
has this been revised for v3.7.11 ...?!
What scoring mode are you using?
/Gunnar
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 12:34:28PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> If I do anything to CGOS it would be handicap games.
I have a small wish. Almost trivial: Add a way for a program to pass a
comment about itself, all the way from command-line to the cgos client to
cgos server to the web page that lis
40 matches
Mail list logo
