Many Faces is a strong traditional program. It evaluates about 100 to 150
positions/sec in the middle game, and up to 500 positions/sec in the
endgame. This is on one processor of a 2.3 GHz core duo. It's for version
12 (not released). Version 11 is slower.
I plan to make it faster, but rig
> No wonder it plays so well at 9x9, because the max length of playout is
> only
> 81, it can 'see' what the board look like when the game ends.
The *average* length of a 9x9 playout is roughly 100 moves.
The max length is much larger.
On a 2.2Ghz Athlon64, I get about 10 000 playouts/second, at
>> Playing randomly like that shouldn't work, but when you play Mogo et al,
>> you see that intelligent behaviour emerges.
>>
>
> Although interesting, I would hardly call that 'intelligence' :-)
Ah, the traditional flamewar topic: the definition of intelligence
shifts whenever a computer achieve
Another thing, do you include random moves for playouts, after some number
of playouts or when there is "K" number empty points or using some other
way.
Fix for previous. Another thing, do you include pass moves for playouts,
after some number
of moves or when there is "K" number empty points o
The *average* length of a 9x9 playout is roughly 100 moves.
The max length is much larger.
The *average* length of a 9x9 playout is roughly 100 moves.
The max length is much larger.
Hmm, sorry if this is old subject but does it effect much for playout
quality if I cut playouts for example max 11
mingwu wrote:
Hi,
I read on the web, and some other places that most Go programs can only
evaluate "a dozen" of moves per second. Is this still true today on a
typical machine, say, single 2GHz CPU, 2GB memory?
This is highly dependent on the program. You can evaluate fast if you
d
>
> I'm sure many of us are surprised how well this stuff
> works.
>
>
I'm not surprised because I knew a little about the principle 10 years
ago. I create a game based on English/British checkers but played on
a 6x6 board and a slightly different jump rule (you can only jump one
piece in
mingwu wrote:
>
>> Playing randomly like that shouldn't work, but when you play Mogo et al,
>> you see that intelligent behaviour emerges.
>>
>>
>
> Although interesting, I would hardly call that 'intelligence' :-) And I
> suspect how far it can achieve on 19x19 board (compare to human playe
Harri Salakoski wrote:
>>> The *average* length of a 9x9 playout is roughly 100 moves.
>>> The max length is much larger.
>> The *average* length of a 9x9 playout is roughly 100 moves.
>> The max length is much larger.
> Hmm, sorry if this is old subject but does it effect much for playout
> qual
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>> Playing randomly like that shouldn't work, but when you play Mogo et al,
>>> you see that intelligent behaviour emerges.
>>>
>>>
>> Although interesting, I would hardly call that 'intelligence' :-)
>>
>
> Ah, the traditional flamewar topic: the definitio
Harri Salakoski wrote:
The *average* length of a 9x9 playout is roughly 100 moves.
The max length is much larger.
The *average* length of a 9x9 playout is roughly 100 moves.
The max length is much larger.
Hmm, sorry if this is old subject but does it effect much for playout
quality if I cut pla
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.
Strange. The reverse would make more sense to me.
Rémi
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
We have not had a single server crash in the almost 5 days since this
bug fix.
So it's likely that this bug was causing most of the problems and now
it's fixed.
Thanks to Michael Williams who spotted the problem and proposed the fix.
- Don
Don Dailey wrote:
> I deployed a potential fix to the 9
Surely he meant the opposite.
- Don
Rémi Coulom wrote:
> Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>> Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.
>
> Strange. The reverse would make more sense to me.
>
> Rémi
> ___
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@comp
Single stone suicide is much easier to test for. :)
- Dave Hillis
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go
Sent: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:11 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] On average how many board updates/sec can top Go
programs do these days?
Surely he mea
2008/1/15, Rémi Coulom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> > Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.
>
> Strange. The reverse would make more sense to me.
Multi-stone suicide is sometimes the best move (if the
rules allow it). This is because multi-stone suicide is
somet
No, God creates all the rest, integers are just work of man.?
DL?
"God create integers, all the rest are just work of man" :-)
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com
___
Um, by easier I mean faster. Also, I think single point suicide is more likely
to lead to infinite loops, depending on your eye-filling rule.
- Dave Hillis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:16 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go
Rémi Coulom wrote:
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>
Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.
Strange. The reverse would make more sense to me.
I do not track liberties, so the speed penalty for doing it that way is
too much.
I wrote my program to track psuedoliberties because this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Um, by easier I mean faster. Also, I think single point suicide is more
likely to lead to infinite loops, depending on your eye-filling rule.
- Dave Hillis
Yes.
Particularly near the end of the game there are zillions of bad single
stone suicides, but not often mul
As suggested by David Fotland I made a simple referee type of setup
so that I can have two engines play each other continuously. I got it
working with GnuGo but with MoGo I get an "Access denied" message
when I try to start it from the referee program. When starting from
the command-line I
How can you call it 'intelligence' if a person limits one's thoughts and
viewpoints to a narrow domain?
DL
Although interesting, I would hardly call that 'intelligence' :-)
More new features than ever. Check out
On Jan 15, 2008, at 10:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, by easier I mean faster. Also, I think single point suicide is
more likely to lead to infinite loops, depending on your eye-
filling rule.
- Dave Hillis
I don't understand why anyone would allow suicide in playouts. No
commonly
I think the only reasonable argument for suicide in the play-outs is
speed. It's possible to improve the speed of play-outs significantly if
you avoid the suicide test.
But I'm convinced that it comes at a price. Suicide is the best move
very rarely, and in rule-sets that do not allow it, it'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How can you call it 'intelligence' if a person limits one's thoughts and
> viewpoints to a narrow domain?
>
Yes, I agree. It really took some imagination and open mindedness to
discover UCT and Monte Carlo since it breaks so sharply away from the
old traditional w
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008, at 10:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, by easier I mean faster. Also, I think single point suicide is
more likely to lead to infinite loops, depending on your eye-filling
rule.
- Dave Hillis
I don't understand why anyone would allow suicide in play
Another possible reason could be for SIMD (vector) parallel processing. Years
ago, I was a real-time image processing guy. Some time back, I did a
back-of-the-envelope design for doing?light playouts on multiple go boards at
once, on a dedicated parallel processing card. It meant?tiling all thes
Gian-Carlo Pascutto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I wrote my program to track psuedoliberties because this is very fast
> and I thought I could take a lot of shortcuts and early exits when I had
> to know the real amount of liberties. Unfortunately the interesting
> cases seem to be the ones that
- Original Message
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:59:15 PM
Subject: cgbg, was [computer-go] On average how many board updates/sec can top
Go programs do these days?
Gian-Carlo Pascutto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I wrot
terry mcintyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > www.swcp.com/~wing/cgbg
>
> I visited the www page, and the combination of with
> very long lines does not work well at all. Tried both firefox
> and IE. prevents the browser from wrapping the text to
> fit the display page.
Thanks. Reformatted the
Much better!!
Cheers,
David
On 15, Jan 2008, at 3:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
terry mcintyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
www.swcp.com/~wing/cgbg
I visited the www page, and the combination of with
very long lines does not work well at all. Tried both firefox
and IE. prevents the brow
I tried to send you a zip file, but the email failed, then it said it would
be delivered. Let me know if you don't get it.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Boon
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:11 AM
> To: comput
Hmm, sorry if this is old subject but does it effect much for playout
quality if I cut playouts for example max 110 moves in 9*9 board?
Yes, that will significantly hurt your play-outs.Do you throw away
the results or score it as is?
I have a very liberal cutoff on my program - from any posi
I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
If a point is illegal for black, are you saying that black can never
play at that point, or are you saying white can never play there? Or
are you saying neither side can?
What is the reason for this? I'm not sure I understand what you are
say
I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
If a point is illegal for black, are you saying that black can never
play at that point, or are you saying white can never play there? Or
are you saying neither side can?
Yep currently neither side can anymore use that point.
What is the reason f
>> I think with more
>> analysis you might be able to find shortcuts - one example is the mercy
>> rule which leans on certain assumptions.
> mercy rule?
Mercy rule: if one side is way ahead, stop the game early.
>
> t. Harri
>
>
>
>>
>> - Don
>>
>>
>>
>> Harri Salakoski wrote:
> Hmm, sorr
> >
> > If a point is illegal for black, are you saying that black can never
> > play at that point, or are you saying white can never play there?
> Or
> > are you saying neither side can?
> Yep currently neither side can anymore use that point.
This is a mistake. There are often moves that are
This is a mistake. There are often moves that are illegal for black that
are big for white. If you don't let white play there, white can lose a
lot
of points. Connections through false eyes are one example.
Yep agree that, knowing that it is not fair for other but kind of
rationalized it tha
38 matches
Mail list logo
