In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joshua
Shriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
< snip >
Also, while I love computer-go.. is there a go-player mailing list?
There is a Go usenet group, rec.games.go, but trolls have driven away
many of its users, who can now be found on http://www.godiscussions.
Hello David,
David Fotland: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>One for each. Actually they were running on a 128 core cluster. The
>current code only scales to 32 cores, so only half the cluster was used.
Thanks, then four strongest MFG's can run simultaneously... :!
Hideki
>David
>
>> -Original Messa
On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:28 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It depends very much on what exactly you mean by "amateur master
level". Is it a level that compares to amateur master level in chess?
And what is amateur master level in chess? USCF master, FIDE master
or internat
I think that would not be enough, because that would only fix one point.
EGF ratings are not pure Elo ratings. EGF ratings are weighted to fit 100
points for one handicap stone, which happens to match about 65% winning
percentage in even games for medium level players (around 3k).
Also, I am not
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that would not be enough, because that would only fix one point.
You can use the width too. That should give a pretty good comparision
for moderatly strong/weak players (see below).
EGF ratings are not pure Elo ratings. EGF ratings are weig
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Christoph Birk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I think that would not be enough, because that would only fix one point.
>>
>
> You can use the width too. That should give a pretty good comparision
> for moderatly str
That is wonderful!
When I look at this table it seems to support my claim that USCF master (2200
USCF Elo) compares to about 4d (2400 EGF) and that 2d compares to a strong USCF
class A player.
So this table too, suggests that computer-go has not yet been reached "amateur
master level" in the U
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 10:24 -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
> That should not matter much. The typical chess player should be
> "as strong" as the typical Go player and I also expect the strength
> distribution to follow similar lines.
Larry Kaufman, a chess Grandmaster and also an expert in many ga
Let me rephrase a bit: USCF master level is about 3% away from the human top,
but 7-8 handicap stones (an estimate of mogo's distance from the top) is about
13% away from the human top.
A program would have to win about 50% of its games with a 5 stone handicap
against a strong pro before claim
Not sure if I buy that. For any complex game, you have a range or random player to best-in-world player. There are nearly infinite actual ratings between the
two. Since Go is clearly more complex than chess, Go's "nearly infinite" is probably larger that chess's "nearly infinite", but that's be
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 15:03 -0500, Michael Williams wrote:
> Not sure if I buy that. For any complex game, you have a range or random
> player to best-in-world player. There are nearly infinite actual ratings
> between the
> two. Since Go is clearly more complex than chess, Go's "nearly infin
Don Dailey wrote:
I'm talking about the fattest portion of the human range of skill. If
you consider the fattest part of the bell, say the 99% of the players
not extremely weak or extremely strong, the range is pretty limited.
In chess it's probably more like 2000, not the 3000 I was saying (if
I doubt that much can be learned from comparing the overall length of rating
scales.
1: The large draw margin in chess compresses the high end of the chess Elo
range compared to go.
It takes a fairly large difference in skill for one very strong chess player to
win 65% against another very s
Erratum: Such a scale would probably "stretch" the range at the top and
"compress" it at the bottom ... >> Such a scale would probably "compress" the
range at the top and "stretch" it at the bottom ...
It requires many more Elo points to compensate for a chess handicap at the high
end than at
Hello,
somebody thinks about this option to reduce the searchtree?
The given values are:
The last boards m_l := 361 * 360
The current board m_c := c * (c - 1) and
m_c involved in m_l := m_p (-> m_p is subset of m_l, all lastmove boards with
m_c ; see example)
1. Every matrix (every goboard)
15 matches
Mail list logo
