Registration is now open for next Sunday's bot tournament. This will
use small boards, 9x9 for the Formal division and 13x13 for the Open
division. It will start at 08:00 GMT, and take place in the Asian
evening, European morning, and American night. Time limits will be 8
minutes each, sudden
The title of my original posting was wrong - it should have been April,
not March.
Nick
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Wedd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Registration is now open for next Sunday's bot tournament. This will
use small boards, 9x9 for the Formal division and 13x13 for the Op
I did an experiment that looks rather similar. I generated patterns
and only kept the ones that had a minimum amount of 'urgency' and a
minimum number of occurrences. But I noticed two things when using
these patterns in a MC playout:
1) There are many important moves missing. Apparently th
Mark Boon wrote:
> I did an experiment that looks rather similar. I generated patterns
> and only kept the ones that had a minimum amount of 'urgency' and a
> minimum number of occurrences. But I noticed two things when using
> these patterns in a MC playout:
>
> 1) There are many important moves
I think Don Dailey makes a good point about creating a
line of search which can quickly prove or refute a
line of play.
I've been using life-and-death problems to improve my
own level of play, and sometimes "vital move" patterns
quickly lead to proper solutions - but sometimes they
fail, and one m
On 31-mrt-08, at 12:36, Don Dailey wrote:
Are these fixed patterns or wildcard patterns? I'm interested in
wildcard patterns too and how to automatically generate them.
A wildcard pattern is exactly the same as a decision tree (it can be
represented perfectly by a decision tree.)There
>
>>
>> Heavier playouts have been shown to be far superior, but just placing
>> stronger moves in the playouts does not seem to be the right
>> formula. My guess is that if you place arbitrary knowledge into the
>> playouts, you create terrible imbalances. Perhaps the secret (I'm
>> enter
On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Mark Boon wrote:
I don't know about this. I'm pretty sure MoGo checks if the stone
can make at least two liberties (ladder problem) in which case it
can still be horrible but very seldomly worse than random.
I would expect playing a "not-working" ladder to be w
Christoph Birk wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Mark Boon wrote:
>> I don't know about this. I'm pretty sure MoGo checks if the stone can
>> make at least two liberties (ladder problem) in which case it can
>> still be horrible but very seldomly worse than random.
>
> I would expect playi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Mark Boon wrote:
I don't know about this. I'm pretty sure MoGo checks if the stone
can
make at least two liberties (ladder problem) in which case it can
still be horrible but very seldomly w
Christoph Birk wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
>>
>>
>> Christoph Birk wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Mark Boon wrote:
I don't know about this. I'm pretty sure MoGo checks if the stone can
make at least two liberties (ladder problem) in which case
11 matches
Mail list logo
