Don,
I think we have a semantic problem. Some things don't work as expected
but provide the genesis for further creativity. Other things work, but
not with sufficient additional value for the disproportionate effort
invested. Some things don't end up having any enduring value except as
one
What's going on with the 19x19 server?
It's been down for a few days now.
- Don
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:30:01AM +0100, Benjamin Teuber wrote:
> AFAIK, CMUCL is the fastest free lisp available. But I would rather
> stick with its offspring, SBCL, which might be a bit slower, but it is
> being worked on actively, it is quite portable
> (http://sbcl.sourceforge.net/platform-ta
On Nov 25, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Ian Osgood wrote:
On Nov 25, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Ian Osgood wrote:
Folks might be interested in the Common Lisp chess program
"Symbolic" by Steven J. Edwards (of PGN fame). From his ICC
description:
Symbolic is a C++/Lisp chessplaying program written by S.
On Nov 25, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Ian Osgood wrote:
Folks might be interested in the Common Lisp chess program
"Symbolic" by Steven J. Edwards (of PGN fame). From his ICC
description:
Symbolic is a C++/Lisp chessplaying program written by S. J.
Edwards. Symbolic's C++ source is fully ANSI/
Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote:
> Heikki,
>
> I'm with you. There is no "wrong thinking" at the present time.
Of course there is wrong thinking. Why do you think they call it the
"trial and error" approach?
- Don
> There are too many differing agendas, with building the strongest
> program i
Heikki Levanto wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 11:52:14AM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
>
>> I know that most go programmers don't concern themselves with small
>> improvements because of the sense that there is bigger fish to fry.
>> But this is wrong thinking. If you can get 10 small improv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 22, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Stefan Nobis wrote:
"Benjamin Teuber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Man, we really need a complete Common Lisp Go Framework which also
has some fast low-level code to show all these C gurus its true
power :)
I think s
Heikki,
I'm with you. There is no "wrong thinking" at the present time. There
are too many differing agendas, with building the strongest program
immediately being only one, to claim any approach is futile, inefficient
or erred. Once there are approaches that actually come near playing low
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 11:52:14AM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> I know that most go programmers don't concern themselves with small
> improvements because of the sense that there is bigger fish to fry.
> But this is wrong thinking. If you can get 10 small improvements it
> can be equivalent to o
> However, perhaps there are ways to make testing a Go program use less clock
> time?
This is the right idea.
Chess programmers use massive automated testing - playing games. To
measure a small ELO improvement in your program requires tens of
thousands of games.I think it's something l
Joshua Shriver wrote:
>
> FPGA boards are expensive
How many gates do you need?
It's not because the eval boards you find everywhere are expensive that
FPGA's are. Low-cost ones go from 10 to 70 USD depending on the gate
count. A bargain compared to an ASIC solution as long as the quantities
are
12 matches
Mail list logo
