I don't understand this ... isn't the number 8?
Cheers,
David
On 12, Oct 2006, at 11:38 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
1 canonical position per 16
equivalent states. The actual number is less than 16.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.
Hello All,
It is my belief that the next big advance in computer Go will
come from an understanding of scaling relationships. With the
recent advances in MC programs, there is plenty of interesting
work to be done in how those programs will scale with more
time and/or memory.
My question to all
In our SlugGo DB effort we have the DB return all moves known to
continue from the board state, and each move is also associated
with its winning percentage.
Cheers,
David
On 14, Oct 2006, at 5:31 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
There is another technique that may be more effective that the one I
have
What you are suggesting is quite similar to what human players do.
The problem is that Don is trying to bias for speed with a hash-table
like evaluation to quickly identify the board. I think that if there
were
a fast dependable algorithm for the identification of "irrelevant"
stones
prior to
On 14, Oct 2006, at 11:57 PM, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Hi,
On 10/14/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 20:33 +, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> I think there are legal positions that
> can be reached only by passing - these could also be skipped in a
> database, I think
Will other programmers be bringing their programs?
I plan to be there with SlugGo, which involves traveling with a
cluster ... and that is quite a bother!
Last year Anders was there with SmartGo, and we played our
programs against each other the day before. Anders tells me
that this year he will
Are the elo ratings integer or floats?
I am just wondering if partial (less than one) ratings build up or
are truncated.
Cheers,
David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-
Hello All,
SlugGo was entered in the Cotsen Open this last weekend in Los
Angeles, where it crashed from a seg-v in all 5 games. We obviously
have some serious debugging to do, so we will have to pass this
month's tournament.
Cheers,
David
On 30, Oct 2006, at 5:24 AM, Nick Wedd wrote:
You can reduce this far more by using symmetry arguments:
if you are willing to eliminate only the edge moves from first
level considerations, then there are only 10 moves, six if you
are also willing to eliminate the second row, because of the
8-fold symmetry. While this advantage drops quickly a
On 17, Nov 2006, at 12:49 AM, Wodzu wrote:
Could You give an example of such pattern or maybe is there
somwhere a list of
common patterns?
I just got this last night from a Go-playing computer-programming
friend:
I found new English translations of very popular Japanese Go books
that
I have been *so* tempted to either ignore this thread or rename it ...
On 30, Nov 2006, at 10:36 AM, Wodzu wrote:
i think speed is one of most important things beacuse it affects
strength of the program ;) (if the time for move is restricted)
anyway, chosing a proper (fastest) algorithm has cr
I think that MC will be useful on 19x19 if a clever way to restrict
it to
sub-game searches can be implemented.
Cheers,
David
On 30, Nov 2006, at 1:51 PM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
Chrilly wrote:
I believe that MC will be the only way to write a GO program in the
near future leaving the other
On 30, Nov 2006, at 3:46 PM, Eduardo Sabbatella wrote:
David Doshay wrote:
Also, my data shows that if I doubled the time
allowed for playing,
thus "using" the time gained from faster execution
for doing deeper
lookahead, the results did not improve, but actually
got worse.
Sor
On 30, Nov 2006, at 4:47 PM, Unknown wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 14:44 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
Also, my data shows that if I doubled the time allowed for playing,
thus "using" the time gained from faster execution for doing deeper
lookahead, the results did not improve, but ac
On 1, Dec 2006, at 6:15 AM, Wodzu wrote:
- Original Message - From: "David Doshay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Also, my data shows that if I doubled the time allowed for
playing, thus
"using" the time gained from faster execution for doing deeper
lookahead,
t
The cooling system went down in SlugGo's machine room, and
my racks had to be powered down. So, SlugGo continues to be
on the wrong end of some bad luck and cannot play.
I hope that this gives another GNU-based player, or GNU Go
itself, a chance. I also hope that SlugGo will be able to join
the K
ent good move is good for me" in
a GNU Go bot
and this gave funny things like "reverse monkey jump".
David Doshay reported this too with early SlugGo (which also takes
into
account opponent good moves)
XXXO
..XO
..X.
.a.. Instead of blocking the mo
This is an echo of my experience with SlugGo, and SlugGo has no MC
component. This is just part of trying to program Go, whatever the
algorithm.
Cheers,
David
On 5, Dec 2006, at 1:32 PM, Richard Lorentz wrote:
confusing to me is that we've tried some simple improvements to the
random
On 5, Dec 2006, at 12:48 PM, Nick Wedd wrote:
But I understand that SlugGo is off sick at present, and as it is
the program that would most enjoy such time settings, maybe I
should wait until I hear that it has recovered?
Hi all,
One of the most persistent misunderstandings with respect
On 7, Dec 2006, at 2:09 PM, Peter Drake wrote:
Are you one of those who advocates ignoring the ko rule during MC
searches?
SlugGo is not monte carlo, but we launch parallel lookahead
sequences, so its not really different than your threads. We ignore
the ko info in the lookaheads and only
A few months ago I suggested a number of stepwise increases
in board size to see how the algorithms scaled. It seems to me
having just 2 data points does not say enough about how the
MC (or any other) algorithm scales, so I wanted to be able to
graph some measure of strength against increasing bo
We are working hard to be ready on short notice, and are shooting
in the dark about how to use the extra time. So far we are not able
to bring up a SlugGo that would take advantage of that much time.
But we will keep trying and, as you said:
You can regard it as a test slow tournament.
Cheer
Hi,
We are using the new KGS for the first time and are bumping
incrementally into the changes in the parameter file. Could someone
please post one for us?
Cheers,
David
On 14, Dec 2006, at 4:49 AM, Nick Wedd wrote:
The 2006 Slow KGS computer Go tournament will be next week,
starting
dSize=9
rules.time=10:00
reconnect=t
-
Old server is
"server.host=goserver.igoweb.org"
And you should use new kgsGtp-3.3.11.tar.gz
http://www.gokgs.com/download.xhtml
Regards,
Hiroshi Yamashita
- Original Message ---
erver.host=goserver.igoweb.org"
And you should use new kgsGtp-3.3.11.tar.gz
http://www.gokgs.com/download.xhtml
Regards,
Hiroshi Yamashita
- Original Message -----
From: "David Doshay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "computer-go"
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:
There seem to be other modes having to do with estimated kyu level
and game pairing. I guess we need to ignore those for the tournament?
Cheers,
David
On 18, Dec 2006, at 1:00 AM, William M. Shubert wrote:
Oops, sorry for not notifying people here about the the change. I
assumed that people
It seems that so far the moves generated by SlugGo are not worth the
time they take, and in fact look worse than moves I might expect with
shorter time settings. I will be able to check later by replaying
this game (with faster lookahead) but forcing SlugGo to continue
following this game.
SlugGo has played in the Cotsen Open the last 2 years in Los Angeles.
The program has entered in the 10k bracket against humans. People
are allowed to decline being paired against the program because in
AGA rules, games against computers do not count towards your
official ranking. The games are of
On 2, Jan 2007, at 11:42 PM, Chrilly wrote:
The Cotsen Open has a cash prize for the best computer program,
which I felt somewhat guilty accepting after loosing all games due
to the bug, but SlugGo was the only program entered this year, and
the cash did help to offset the cost of renting the wh
On 1, Jan 2007, at 12:15 PM, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
And now remember how this discussion started: There was a proposal
to penalize pass moves made by Lukasz Lew.
If that proposal is implemented, Japanese programs will no longer
loose one or two points against a better ruleset adapted bot, but
On 3, Jan 2007, at 1:32 PM, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
Again sorry for this incredibly long game, I was expecting that
programs resign before the end. The politness by passing is enabled
only against human.
I do not think that any apology is needed. The length of the game was
due only to a set
I agree with your point that Japanese rules give an additional
advantage to the stronger player. I just see the advantage as a
natural extension of the advantage in the real world of being
more efficient in all things, including ending things. I also see
that advantage as dropping more rapidly tha
On 3, Jan 2007, at 2:53 PM, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, David Doshay wrote:
Chinese, note that SlugGo started passing, indicating that it saw no
purpose in any more moves, at move 239. Here, the boundaries are
clear, the dead stones are clear to a human, and the winner is plenty
On 3, Jan 2007, at 2:53 PM, Christoph Birk wrote:
I don't understand. Using Japanese counting W still wins by 2.5 pts
after move 525.
I was rushed in my previous reply but have more time now.
My sgf reader (GoBan on a Mac) says the situation at the
end of the game is:
Black has 71 points on
On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed
to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not
require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly
passes should be awarded a point for his ski
extra skill required as mentioned
below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly.
Cheers,
David
On 4, Jan 2007, at 12:53 PM, David Doshay wrote:
On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed
to be
OK, now I see your perspective ... the invader has the right to
ask the defender to prove their skill, which I must say seems
very much like a gamble to me, but should not be punished
if their attempt is refuted. As such, I claim only that in this
case we have to assume that it will be the norm fo
On 4, Jan 2007, at 1:37 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I'm certainly not interested in winning
points that way and would take no delight in it.
I do not take delight in picking up the points, but in my
feeling that this shows true understanding of the reality
of what is on the board. Whenever it look
.
Cheers,
David
On 4, Jan 2007, at 1:44 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:16 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned
below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly.
I hope the programming effort isn't spend on
13:16 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
> I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned
> below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly.
I hope the programming effort isn't spend on this mundane stuff,
but instead is applied to playing the game well - not try
at 12:53 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is
supposed
to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not
require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly
passes
On 5, Jan 2007, at 8:50 AM, Mark Boon wrote:
How would you feel if your opponent played out possible all ko-
threats at the end of the game?
I once played a game against a Chinese graduate student who did
exactly that. I was quite impressed with how thorough he was, as if
that kind of com
And so we enter the "second phase" ...
On 5, Jan 2007, at 8:50 AM, Mark Boon wrote:
I think you are mistaken for the real reason of the 'second phase',
where he who passes has to pay a point. This 'second phase' only
comes into effect after both sides have passed. It's to solve
disputes in
I would suggest the minor correction to say that any non-GNU
based program would have this hope. SlugGo already does this,
but I doubt it has this meaning.
Cheers,
David
On 10, Jan 2007, at 4:38 PM, steve uurtamo wrote:
as an example, if any program could give gnugo 9 stones
under these circ
We generally use level 10 or 12. We have found that very rarely on
level 15 GG will run off into the weeds, never (longer than 24 hours)
to make a move. This has also been reported by others at level 18. We
have never seen this happen at level 10 or 12.
Cheers,
David
On 10, Jan 2007, at
We are still bringing up our 2nd method, so we are not yet as far
as choosing a voting method.
Cheers,
David
On 11, Mar 2008, at 12:18 PM, Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
Le vendredi 1 février 2008, David Doshay a écrit :
This is the direction in which we are moving with SlugGo. We also
expect it
Unfortunately, the overlap with the US Go Congress will prevent SlugGo
from attending. We are working towards having a cluster and SlugGo at
the US Congress.
Cheers,
David
On 16, Mar 2008, at 8:59 AM, Nick Wedd wrote:
This year the annual European Computer Go Congress is in Leksand,
Sweden,
both, but with 19 having more priority.
I would like to see multi-round round-robin.
Cheers,
David
On 19, Mar 2008, at 9:06 AM, Peter Drake wrote:
Thanks to everyone for all the comments.
Another question: Should the tournament be 9x9, 19x19, or both?
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~dr
Hello programmers,
Hierarchical Systems Research Foundation (HSRF), a privately funded
IRS recognized 501(c)3 public benefit organization, is providing a
total of $1,000 in prize money for a computer-computer tournament
to be held at the 2008 US Go Congress in Portland Oregon.
While the exact br
Our pattern matching work is just now starting to run.
We will post details when we have done more testing.
Cheers,
David
On 26, Mar 2008, at 11:08 AM, Mark Boon wrote:
Lately I have been putting some effort into pattern-matching.
Although I have made progress, the result was not as good as
On 27, Mar 2008, at 3:39 PM, David Fotland wrote:
US go congress (August, small prize this year)
Since I announced that HSRF will supply $1,000 total of prize money for
computer Go at the US Congress this year, another person contacted me
and has agreed to add a minimum of $250. The offer is
We have worked with 3x3 patterns, and are now working with 4x4 and 5x5
patterns. It is not easy to know what to do, so you have to think
about what makes sense to you in the context of how your bot does
evaluations and move generation. We do not yet have results to share.
Cheers,
David
O
Hi,
As mentioned before, Monte Carlo simulations in physics was my thesis
topic, and there we need REALLY good PRNGs or we see the effect in
the results.
There is always a tradeoff between fast and good. If the newer Mersine
Twister algorithms (which are very good) is too slow and you want to
te
These shuffles are different than the one I used and attempted to
describe.
Cheers,
David
On 16, May 2008, at 12:55 PM, terry mcintyre wrote:
An interesting note from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_shuffle which
appears to be pertinent to Don's remarks about a
limited number of games:
A while ago I asked this list what would encourage more programmers to
bring their programs to the US Go Congress. Prize money was mentioned
by several, and as a result the foundation I run, Hierarchical Systems
Research Foundation, put up $1,000 for prize money. A donor outside
HSRF has c
With the possible exception of the Mogo team, I think that having to
haul computers is a bigger deal to me than anybody else, and I just
accept it as part of the process right now.
I think it is the right idea to run it on KGS because it gives
programmers the ability to try everything out i
oops, stupid me ...
Cheers,
David
On 4, Jun 2008, at 9:13 PM, Peter Drake wrote:
For what it's worth, the current schedule has dinner from 5:30-7:00.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/list
SlugGo is not ready for such a big trip this year. Hopefully next
year ...
Cheers,
David
On 5, Jun 2008, at 11:39 AM, Joshua Shriver wrote:
Wish I could go, maybe next year. Amazed that the WCCC is being held
at the same place just 3 days after. :)
-Josh
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:08 AM
Hello all,
The total prize money pool from which various prizes will be awarded
will be at least $1250.
The uncertainty in the distribution is because we may wish to keep
some prize money for computer programs that compete against humans. At
the Cotsen Open in Los Angeles, programs have e
Ooops, that should be that play against humans may be different than
play against other computer programs.
Cheers,
David
On 9, Jun 2008, at 5:33 PM, David Doshay wrote:
Play against humans may be different than play against humans
rs or
omissions.
Program Primary Author Notes
SlugGo David Doshay As the author is involved in organizing the
tournament,
this program will not be eligible for prize
money
Orego Peter Drake Same as above
FirstGo Edward de
rote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David
Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I had not previously heard about Sam Gross and Argus. Is there any
info about that program?
A program of that name came third out of six entrants in the
European Computer Go Tournament in 1995. That is
Someday computer Go will evolve enough to have enough trust for
remote computing. But not today, unfortunately.
Cheers,
David
On 17, Jul 2008, at 9:39 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
... simply using an ssh
connection to my machine at home would have been *much* easier...
cluster, and it
is
a pain.
Cheers,
David
On 17, Jul 2008, at 10:08 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
In what way would computer Go need to evolve?
Erik
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:50 PM, David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Someday computer Go will evolve enough to have enough tru
, Jul 2008, at 10:21 AM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
David Doshay wrote:
Someday computer Go will evolve enough to have enough trust for
remote computing. But not today, unfortunately.
Cheers,
David
The Computer Olympiad has allowed it, at least in 2006, 2007, and
2008.
Rémi
My program runs on a cluster ... no way around that.
Cheers,
David
On 17, Jul 2008, at 12:31 PM, Dave Dyer wrote:
One possibility is to use one of the VM products that are available
to host unix on a windows machine, or windows on a unix machine.
VirtualBox looks particilarly promising, si
On 17, Jul 2008, at 1:34 PM, terry mcintyre wrote:
--- On Thu, 7/17/08, David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My program runs on a cluster ... no way around that.
David, you're just not taking full advantage of Virtualization ...
On 17, Jul 2008, at 1:02 PM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
David Doshay wrote:
Had I known that I might have participated. I thought I would have
to ship my cluster, and with my previous traveling cluster I thought
it would never get past the US airport security ... is was such a
mass
of wires and
On 17, Jul 2008, at 9:51 PM, tk424 wrote:
The first question is how to prove the new influence function is
better the old one.
I believe it can be said the new influence function is better if the
new GNU Go wins more games, in average, than the old one.
in general a reasonable idea ...
Th
The cluster is in Amsterdam, not France.
Cheers,
David
On 21, Jul 2008, at 2:54 PM, Peter Drake wrote:
Pacific time.
We'll do this in the Computer Go room. We'll announce the usernames
when the time comes.
On Jul 21, 2008, at 2:28 PM, Jason House wrote:
1pm in which timezone? Which ro
After I get home from the Congress I can set up a machine that can run
GNU Go, most probably for 2 board sizes.
Cheers,
David
On 3, Aug 2008, at 11:12 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
The main web page for CGOS has been updated with links to the various
standings pages and updated instructions for usi
mistake by Kim to get an early lead. “I can’t tell you
how amazing this is,” David Doshay -- the SlugGo programmer who
suggested the match -- told the E-Journal after the game.
“I’m shocked at the result. I really didn’t expect the computer to win
in a one-hour game.” Kim easily won two blitz games with 9
On 8, Aug 2008, at 7:29 AM, Eric Boesch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
First of all, congratulations to the MoGo team.
Ditto!
Absolutely an amazing achievement!
Where I do differ in opinion from most is the remarks from the pro.
He
played
I will put up GNU Go when I get home.
Cheers,
David
On 8, Aug 2008, at 8:20 AM, David Fotland wrote:
All three anchors have been off-line since yesterday.
David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/m
Kim applauded once when Mogo made a good move in a blitz game.
I believe that the comment about not using more time, which was in
response to my question, applied only to high handicap games.
Cheers,
David
On 8, Aug 2008, at 9:15 AM, Peter Drake wrote:
One person who seemed to be in the
One point not discussed much in this thread is the consistency issue.
I think that if Kim were able to play a dozen games against mogo with
this same handicap he would win the last 6 ... people manage to adapt
and the computers do not.
But that much cluster time and Mr Kim time are probably
I tried to explain this to Chris Garlock about his misquote of what I
said, but he kind of shrugged it of in the name of "getting the article
out on deadline." The mini-interview with me that he mentions in his
article was what happened when he asked me to proofread an earlier
draft and then we ga
r whatever.
Cheers,
David
On 9, Aug 2008, at 9:34 PM, terry mcintyre wrote:
I was present; David Doshay said that in ten years, it would be
reasonable to expect computers to play even games with pros.
Reporters tend to be a bit sloppy at times. In the Oregonian, David
is reported as
On 10, Aug 2008, at 4:15 AM, Ray Tayek wrote:
At 01:50 AM 8/10/2008, you wrote:
Yeah, I am really on a roll ... ...
On 9, Aug 2008, at 9:34 PM, terry mcintyre wrote:
I was present; David Doshay said that in ten years, it would be
reasonable to expect computers to play even games with pros
While the mogo game and result is in the newspaper and keeping all of
us talking, there was another piece of progress in computer Go that
took place at the US Go congress that I think says more about the
state of computer go than the 9-stone handicap win.
The day before the mogo match there
On 10, Aug 2008, at 8:27 AM, Mark Boon wrote:
So although I think this match was a good mile-stone, I don't see it
as if 9 stones of progress has been made in just a few years. 3-5
stones in ten years on hardware many thousands of times as powerful is
a bit closer to the truth.
My estimate is
.
Cheers,
David
On 10, Aug 2008, at 1:06 PM, Mark Boon wrote:
On 10-aug-08, at 13:11, David Doshay wrote:
As an aside, the pro in question won the US Open, so comments about
him being a weak pro seem inappropriate.
I don't see where anybody questioned the level of the pro. As f
On 11, Aug 2008, at 4:56 AM, Basti Weidemyr wrote:
-
The review of Xiao Ai Lin vs Leela:
http://www.weidemyr.com/egc/cg/XiaoAiLin_Leela-review.sgf
-
Several people at the congress expressed worries to me about what
would happen to the sport Go, if computer programs
It is of no consequence what words WE use to describe this. Journalists
will ALWAYS print it that way. If you use too many big words or ideas
that are accurate but convoluted, you will either not get the publicity
or the journalist will make up something even more absurd.
Sorry if I am a bit ove
If we do concentrate for just a moment on how to beat mogo, I can
report that in the 3 blitz games the pro figured out that multistep
kos were the easy way. But in the longer game he presented the same
pattern to mogo to start it, but mogo played differently. I thought
that was a huge diffe
On 11, Aug 2008, at 7:23 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:55 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
My first impression of watching the game was that Leela was
handicapped
by having a handicap. By that I mean it would have seen itself so far
ahead for the first few moves that is was playing
something even more dramatic.
Cheers,
David
On 11, Aug 2008, at 7:42 PM, Hideki Kato wrote:
David,
I didn't intend to offend any person in this list, sorry for short
of my words. I'm just trying to prevent people misunderstand the
truth.
Hideki
David Doshay: <[EMAIL P
getting repeated a huge number of times.
Cheers,
David
On 12, Aug 2008, at 11:57 AM, Robert Waite wrote:
Just in case anyone hadn't seen the correction yet...
CORRECTION: The EJ misquoted David Doshay in our 8/7 report on
"Computer Beats Pro At U.S. Go Congress." "What I sai
and I also asked Chris to fix
it on the AGA site. I figured it would probably make Slashdot
quickly anyway, so the story might as well be written by someone
with at least a bit of a clue.
Bob
On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:23 PM, David Doshay wrote:
I had asked Chris to print the correction, and h
On 18, Aug 2008, at 6:58 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
Just a guess: an incarnation of Sluggo?
not to my knowledge,
but it is true that students do things that I am not aware of
and they do make up their own player names.
Cheers,
David
___
computer-
I feel that we can now say that some programs on some hardware have
reached 1D. Not 1P, but 1D.
We are setting up another Mogo v.s. Kim Myung-wan game to be held
at the Cotsen Open in Los Angeles.
Cheers,
David
On 4, Sep 2008, at 8:48 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
What I'm trying to determine is if
At the recent US Go Congress in Portland I had a few conversations
with AGA Ratings Statistician Paul Matthews. While the conversations
were centered upon the difficulties of rating Go playing computer
programs, it came out at one point that there had been a very long and
heated argument in
).
Cheers,
David
On 5, Sep 2008, at 1:46 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
David Doshay wrote:
> Two
separate rating tables were kept, one for handicap games and
another for non-handicap games. Over time it turned out that the
ratings for individuals converged
Did they converge for each per
MoGo and Myungwan Kim will hold an exhibition rematch at the Cotsen
Open on Saturday September 20. The exhibition will start at about 5pm
Pacific Daylight time.
As probably known by all on this list, MoGo won the last game, held at
the US Go Congress in Portland Oregon, when it was given a
First move is easy, but depending upon ratio of diameter to length
of torus, ladders can get complicated.
Cheers,
David
On 19, Sep 2008, at 10:48 AM, Álvaro Begué wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would go on a torus be interesting? There are not
It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded
from ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have been a
good improvement because he felt that communication overhead was
significant.
Cheers,
David
On 22, Sep 2008, at 6:06 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
Con
On 22, Sep 2008, at 10:50 PM, Hideki Kato wrote:
David Doshay: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded
from ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have
been a
good improvement because he felt that communication overhe
Hi David,
Did you take those machines to China?
Cheers,
David
On 1, Oct 2008, at 6:14 AM, David Fotland wrote:
I was doing about 40 million playouts per move on 32 Xeon
processors and he had eight cores.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@
Huygens has 3328 cores, but I do not believe that Mogo
has run on more than 800, the number used for both
exhibition matches against Kim Myungwan.
Cheers,
David
On 2, Oct 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Mogo runs on Huygens, which is 3328 cores...
The @home systems work great for big problems that do not have time
constraints. Game playing is interactive and people expect reasonably
quick replies. The problem with @home computational models is that you
never know when the user will want their machine back, so you have the
problem of
1 - 100 of 294 matches
Mail list logo
