Erik van der Werf wrote:
> ...
> Optimal play on 6x6 under Chinese rules is expected
> to give a Black win by 4 points.
I want to lay open, why my expectation for
6x6-Go under Chinese rules is +2 for Black.
With Leela, I played two games (or game fragments)
in analysis mode, starting the machin
Its exactly what I derived myself, so I understand it :)
But it might be difficult for causal reader.
My suggestions:
- you could add factor graph to ease thinking about it.
- [most important] describe what x, sigma_i, and u_i are
- [important] you could explicitly state bayes theorem to derive
po
I think a better way to do this is to self-play a few hundred games with
various komi values. The correct komi will be clear from those games.
This worked on 7x7 so I assume it would work on 6x6. Of course this
cannot be considered a "proof."
- Don
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:53 +0200, "Ingo A
Don Dailey wrote:
> I think a better way to do this is to self-play a few hundred games with
> various komi values.
Do you mean HUMAN self-play or COMPUTER self-/auto-play?
When you mean human self-play, I am not sure that
this is a safer way for such small boards.
> The correct komi will be
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:17 +0200, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > I think a better way to do this is to self-play a few hundred games with
> > various komi values.
>
> Do you mean HUMAN self-play or COMPUTER self-/auto-play?
>
> When you mean human self-play, I am not sure that
To satisfy my standards of proof, games would have to be post-analyzed to
determine whether either side could have made better moves. Duplicate games
would be thrown out; games with inferior play would be tossed. We might not
have the resources to completely solve the game, but we could improve
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that
> such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low
> but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so
> I'm not
> "The approach of this paper is to treat all win rate estimations as
independent estimators with
additive white Gaussian noise. "
Have you tried if that works? (As Łukasz Lew wrote "experimental setup
would be useful") I guess
there may be a flaw in your idea, but I am not a specialist. I will
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:42 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
> To satisfy my standards of proof, games would have to be post-analyzed to
> determine whether either side could have made better moves. Duplicate games
> would be thrown out; games with inferior play would be tossed. We might not
> have
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:48 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that
> > such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low
> > but then I'm
On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "The approach of this paper is to treat all win rate estimations
as independent estimators with
additive white Gaussian noise. "
Have you tried if that works? (As Łukasz Lew wrote "experimental set
up would be usefu
This is an interesting idea, but do you have any actual results? If you
implement this kind of rave formula do you get a stronger program?
David
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason House
> Sent: Wednesday, September 2
12 matches
Mail list logo
