Re: [computer-go] open source Go AI's written in pure python
No, but soon I will publish to the public a Java Go engine including a nice and elegant set of go base classes. --- George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Does anyone know of any open source Go AI's written in pure python? Thanks, George ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] open source Go AI's written in pure python
We'll be the judges of that niceelegant bit ;) I think using the ease of python to get started with algorithms and then later pushing the performance critical sections to C and wrapping with SWIG is a great idea. On 5/25/07, Eduardo Sabbatella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but soon I will publish to the public a Java Go engine including a nice and elegant set of go base classes. --- George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Does anyone know of any open source Go AI's written in pure python? Thanks, George ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] open source Go AI's written in pure python
I don't believe this is a truly workable model. It's often stated as a fundamental working model (especially for language advocates of tcl, ruby, python, etc.) but in practice I have found it difficult at best. At least if your are looking for a high performance program. It's a nice way to get a little performance without too much work - but it's usually far from optimal. I think a better model, if you want to write a program in Python or some other high level interpreted language, is to build a core set of low level routines that are really efficient for C (or assembly.) Then as you add higher level stuff you can decide whether to code in C or Python.In other words, you fundamentally have an underlying C coded program, not the other way around. The data structures are designed to be fast and efficient.Something like that might be possible with Lukasz library for instance. Most libraries that Python and other high level languages use started out as C libraries and were wrapped up to be used with high level languages. But if you know in advance that you are going to do this, you can probably do a nicer job making it work well as a package for that language. It would be fun designing a low level library. Each person might implement it differently and you might find that one library does some things better than another library and you would experiment to find the one that worked best with your own program. - Don On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 11:33 -0400, Steven Clark wrote: We'll be the judges of that niceelegant bit ;) I think using the ease of python to get started with algorithms and then later pushing the performance critical sections to C and wrapping with SWIG is a great idea. On 5/25/07, Eduardo Sabbatella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but soon I will publish to the public a Java Go engine including a nice and elegant set of go base classes. --- George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Does anyone know of any open source Go AI's written in pure python? Thanks, George ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Progressive unpruning in Mango 19x19
Nick Wedd wrote: I prefer unprune to graft. Graft implies adding something to a tree which does not naturally belong there. Not naturally? Consider a tree, to which you, the tree surgeon, have taken a pair of shears, and lopped off a branch. What has been pruned, has been pruned. Q. By what method will you now re-attach that branch to the tree? A. By grafting. Unprune suggests that there is a branch which was implicitly there all along, you earlier decided not to consider it, but you have now reversed that decision. Just as there was a branch, both implicitily and explicitly, that you decided to lop off with your shears. Now that you have decided you didn't really want to lop it off, and reversed your decision, by what method will you re-attach it? Grafting. If you want to reject unprune because it isn't a word, then use grow or widen, which suggest adding something which is naturally part of that tree. If you want to reject graft you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument. I assert, further, that the terms scion and stock could be given explicit technical definitions in this context. -- Richard L. Brown Office of Information Services Senior Unix Sysadmin University of Wisconsin System 780 Regent St., Rm. 246 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Madison, WI 53715 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] open source Go AI's written in pure python
For what it's worth, I'm getting over 25k playouts per second in Java on my 4-core 3GHz machine using Orego. Single easiest improvement: use the -server command line option to Java. This turns on the just-in-time compiler, roughly doubling speed. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ On May 25, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Eduardo Sabbatella wrote: I will try to do my best. :) Selection algorithm in MC is the part you want improve. If you do that in Python, it will be slow. Also, its the part of your code that will be more prune to memory leaks, and errors. because of fast prototyping and changes. I have found that Java is good enough for prototyping... You can simulate up to 2-5k games per second (depends on your selection algorithm / cpu / etc). Simulating 75k/100k per move is a good balance between move quality and resources spent. It only takes 15-30 secs. Eduardo --- Steven Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: We'll be the judges of that niceelegant bit ;) I think using the ease of python to get started with algorithms and then later pushing the performance critical sections to C and wrapping with SWIG is a great idea. On 5/25/07, Eduardo Sabbatella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but soon I will publish to the public a Java Go engine including a nice and elegant set of go base classes. --- George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Does anyone know of any open source Go AI's written in pure python? Thanks, George ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] open source Go AI's written in pure python
From the www page, this python effort actually does use Lukasz' libraries for efficiency. From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't believe this is a truly workable model. It's often stated as a fundamental working model (especially for language advocates of tcl, ruby, python, etc.) but in practice I have found it difficult at best. At least if your are looking for a high performance program. It's a nice way to get a little performance without too much work - but it's usually far from optimal. I think a better model, if you want to write a program in Python or some other high level interpreted language, is to build a core set of low level routines that are really efficient for C (or assembly.) Then as you add higher level stuff you can decide whether to code in C or Python.In other words, you fundamentally have an underlying C coded program, not the other way around. The data structures are designed to be fast and efficient.Something like that might be possible with Lukasz library for instance. Most libraries that Python and other high level languages use started out as C libraries and were wrapped up to be used with high level languages. But if you know in advance that you are going to do this, you can probably do a nicer job making it work well as a package for that language. It would be fun designing a low level library. Each person might implement it differently and you might find that one library does some things better than another library and you would experiment to find the one that worked best with your own program. - Don On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 11:33 -0400, Steven Clark wrote: We'll be the judges of that niceelegant bit ;) I think using the ease of python to get started with algorithms and then later pushing the performance critical sections to C and wrapping with SWIG is a great idea. On 5/25/07, Eduardo Sabbatella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but soon I will publish to the public a Java Go engine including a nice and elegant set of go base classes. --- George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Does anyone know of any open source Go AI's written in pure python? Thanks, George ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink QA. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545367___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] open source Go AI's written in pure python
Have you noticed a difference between Java 5 and 6? I've heard some programs get a nice boost. - Brian On 5/25/07, Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it's worth, I'm getting over 25k playouts per second in Java on my 4-core 3GHz machine using Orego. Single easiest improvement: use the -server command line option to Java. This turns on the just-in-time compiler, roughly doubling speed. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ On May 25, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Eduardo Sabbatella wrote: I will try to do my best. :) Selection algorithm in MC is the part you want improve. If you do that in Python, it will be slow. Also, its the part of your code that will be more prune to memory leaks, and errors. because of fast prototyping and changes. I have found that Java is good enough for prototyping... You can simulate up to 2-5k games per second (depends on your selection algorithm / cpu / etc). Simulating 75k/100k per move is a good balance between move quality and resources spent. It only takes 15-30 secs. Eduardo --- Steven Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: We'll be the judges of that niceelegant bit ;) I think using the ease of python to get started with algorithms and then later pushing the performance critical sections to C and wrapping with SWIG is a great idea. On 5/25/07, Eduardo Sabbatella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but soon I will publish to the public a Java Go engine including a nice and elegant set of go base classes. --- George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Does anyone know of any open source Go AI's written in pure python? Thanks, George ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Progressive unpruning in Mango 19x19
I was under the impression that grafting was used more often for attaching a foreign branch (e.g., to make a pear grow on an apple tree) than for repair. I'm probably wrong about this. Still, in a graft, the thing being grafted on exists and is attached to the tree. The algorithm in question involves (re)opening a channel for the tree to grow into, not attaching something. Just my increasingly digressive thoughts... Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ On May 25, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Richard Brown wrote: Nick Wedd wrote: I prefer unprune to graft. Graft implies adding something to a tree which does not naturally belong there. Not naturally? Consider a tree, to which you, the tree surgeon, have taken a pair of shears, and lopped off a branch. What has been pruned, has been pruned. Q. By what method will you now re-attach that branch to the tree? A. By grafting. Unprune suggests that there is a branch which was implicitly there all along, you earlier decided not to consider it, but you have now reversed that decision. Just as there was a branch, both implicitily and explicitly, that you decided to lop off with your shears. Now that you have decided you didn't really want to lop it off, and reversed your decision, by what method will you re-attach it? Grafting. If you want to reject unprune because it isn't a word, then use grow or widen, which suggest adding something which is naturally part of that tree. If you want to reject graft you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument. I assert, further, that the terms scion and stock could be given explicit technical definitions in this context. -- Richard L. Brown Office of Information Services Senior Unix Sysadmin University of Wisconsin System 780 Regent St., Rm. 246 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Madison, WI 53715 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] open source Go AI's written in pure python
Since I'm on a Mac (It'll be beautiful, but we're not giving it to you until it's good and ready!), I'm still using Java 5. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ On May 25, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Brian Slesinsky wrote: Have you noticed a difference between Java 5 and 6? I've heard some programs get a nice boost. - Brian On 5/25/07, Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it's worth, I'm getting over 25k playouts per second in Java on my 4-core 3GHz machine using Orego. Single easiest improvement: use the -server command line option to Java. This turns on the just-in-time compiler, roughly doubling speed. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ On May 25, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Eduardo Sabbatella wrote: I will try to do my best. :) Selection algorithm in MC is the part you want improve. If you do that in Python, it will be slow. Also, its the part of your code that will be more prune to memory leaks, and errors. because of fast prototyping and changes. I have found that Java is good enough for prototyping... You can simulate up to 2-5k games per second (depends on your selection algorithm / cpu / etc). Simulating 75k/100k per move is a good balance between move quality and resources spent. It only takes 15-30 secs. Eduardo --- Steven Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: We'll be the judges of that niceelegant bit ;) I think using the ease of python to get started with algorithms and then later pushing the performance critical sections to C and wrapping with SWIG is a great idea. On 5/25/07, Eduardo Sabbatella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but soon I will publish to the public a Java Go engine including a nice and elegant set of go base classes. --- George Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Does anyone know of any open source Go AI's written in pure python? Thanks, George ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Progressive unpruning in Mango 19x19
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Nick Wedd wrote: I prefer unprune to graft. Graft implies adding something to a tree which does not naturally belong there. Not naturally? Consider a tree, to which you, the tree surgeon, have taken a pair of shears, and lopped off a branch. What has been pruned, has been pruned. Q. By what method will you now re-attach that branch to the tree? A. By grafting. If the pruning were a real process, you would then feel daft. But if it were a virtual process, you could just reverse it, and unprune the branch. Unprune suggests that there is a branch which was implicitly there all along, you earlier decided not to consider it, but you have now reversed that decision. Just as there was a branch, both implicitily and explicitly, that you decided to lop off with your shears. Now that you have decided you didn't really want to lop it off, and reversed your decision, by what method will you re-attach it? Grafting. If you want to reject unprune because it isn't a word, then use grow or widen, which suggest adding something which is naturally part of that tree. If you want to reject graft you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument. Arboriculturists do not graft on the material that they removed earlier. They graft on foreign material, from a different species or variety. In my garden I have a medlar (_Mespilus_ _germanica_) grafted onto a hawthorn (_Crataegus_ _monogyna_) rootstock. It would be pointless to graft something from the same variety. I assert, further, that the terms scion and stock could be given explicit technical definitions in this context. I hope such definitions will emphasise the foreign nature of the scion. Nick -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Progressive unpruning in Mango 19x19
On 5/25/07, Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was under the impression that grafting was used more often for attaching a foreign branch (e.g., to make a pear grow on an apple tree) than for repair. I'm probably wrong about this. That's the same that I've heard. It may be the norm that most English speakers assume a similar connotation. That's why I still prefer widening over grafting. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Progressive unpruning in Mango 19x19
On 5/24/07, Chaslot G (MICC) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Question for native English speakers: do you think this technique is best described by progressive unpruning or progressive widening? Widening and pruning have different implications, at least to me (a native English speaker). Widening is suggestive of a single expanse and the operation is happening all along one side of the expanse in a uniform manner. A road, a meadow or a railway bed might all be widened. Pruning is suggestive of a branched, network or complex structure, and the operation is happening at selected points to achieve a goal. A hedge, a railway timetable or a set of laws might all be pruned. Having said that, pruning in computer science has a specific meaning (since the 1973 Scientific American article by Shannon), To take away or remove (superfluities, deformities), based on existing uses of the terms of languages, texts and laws[1]. This definition of pruning doesn't seem to apply, since the first expansion of the search tree is not performed by finding and removing superfluous or bad nodes, but by pure chance. If there has been no pruning, there can be no reversal of the pruning, no unpruning. So I'd go with progressive widening. Or that's my 2p. cheers stuart [1] I don't know this by heart, but I have access to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50191254 because I'm Oxford-based. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] 19x19 competitors
I have been running GnuGo3.7.10 as one of the anchors on the CGOS 19x19 server, and there don't seem to be a lot of non-gnu players on the server over the last few days. Since the load on my dual-core machine is negligible, I'd like to volunteer to host an additional Go player, the better to help establish rankings. So if you've got a hot Monte Carlo bot that you'd like to run through the paces, send me the executable ( my box is a Linux 64 bit AMD ) and I'll fire up a client. First come, first served. Terry McIntyre UNIX for hire software development / systems administration / security [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go and UCT: article in June 2007 SciAm
On 5/24/07, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. John, it says the new algorithm can topple strong players - shall we just believe them and say I won that bet? We don't really need to play the games out to prove it do we ;-). On 9x9 they definitely can. I've lost a few games myself to the likes of Mogo. But on 19x19 they have some way to go, and it will be interesting to see if they can make it. 3.5 years is a long time, and with the current pace of developments, I think you stand a fair chance to win our bet. Some people have alrready inquired if they can get in on the bet themselves. My co-author Álvaro thinks I'll still have the upper hand in 2010, so I suggest people contact him to make additional bets:-) regards, -John ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go and UCT: article in June 2007 SciAm
Is there some kind of bet on this?When did that happen? What is the bet exactly? - Don On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 20:47 -0400, John Tromp wrote: On 5/24/07, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. John, it says the new algorithm can topple strong players - shall we just believe them and say I won that bet? We don't really need to play the games out to prove it do we ;-). On 9x9 they definitely can. I've lost a few games myself to the likes of Mogo. But on 19x19 they have some way to go, and it will be interesting to see if they can make it. 3.5 years is a long time, and with the current pace of developments, I think you stand a fair chance to win our bet. Some people have alrready inquired if they can get in on the bet themselves. My co-author Álvaro thinks I'll still have the upper hand in 2010, so I suggest people contact him to make additional bets:-) regards, -John ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go and UCT: article in June 2007 SciAm
On 5/25/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there some kind of bet on this?When did that happen? What is the bet exactly? Somewhere around 2000, I claimed I would not be beaten by a computer under match conditions (eg. 10 games at 1hr per side + byo-yomi) within 10 years. Which Darren doubted. So we made a bet... for $1000. So far Darren has not arranged for any match:-) regards, -John ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go and UCT: article in June 2007 SciAm
I think your money is safe. I'm not sure if the first milestone has been reached, can Mogo actually beat you under similar conditions in a 9x9 match?I don't mean just to win games, but can it win a long match? Until you can be beaten pretty consistently at 9x9, I believe there is little chance at the big board. To beat you at 19x19 we will need 2 things: 1. Some serious additional software progress at 19x19. 2. Some serious hardware. Most of the effort should be spent on 1, and then just before the match is scheduled it should be run on the biggest machine available.I'll bet by 2010 big clusters with each cpu having 4 or 8 cores will be common. They will boost the strength of the system enormously. - Don On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 23:33 -0400, John Tromp wrote: On 5/25/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there some kind of bet on this?When did that happen? What is the bet exactly? Somewhere around 2000, I claimed I would not be beaten by a computer under match conditions (eg. 10 games at 1hr per side + byo-yomi) within 10 years. Which Darren doubted. So we made a bet... for $1000. So far Darren has not arranged for any match:-) regards, -John ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
