Thanks Heikki, this is what I'm trying to write in English right
now :).
-Hideki
Heikki Levanto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:15:36PM -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
What you are trying to do is more in the category of opponent
modeling.
Attached is an sgf-game of a long kofight on 9x9 between Valkyria and
Gnugo. Valkyria of course wins with 0.5 otherwise it would probably
not have been such a nice example of a long kofight.
-Magnus
kofight318392.sgf
Description: application/go-sgf
On 3-mrt-08, at 18:43, Don Dailey wrote:
I base that logic on my observations that once the score goes below
10%
for Lazarus, it is losing. It's extremely rare that it salvages a
game
once the score goes below even 20%.
In which case I could argue that attempts at winning by playing
Mark Boon wrote:
On 3-mrt-08, at 18:43, Don Dailey wrote:
I base that logic on my observations that once the score goes below 10%
for Lazarus, it is losing. It's extremely rare that it salvages a game
once the score goes below even 20%.
In which case I could argue that attempts at
Quoting Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 3-mrt-08, at 18:43, Don Dailey wrote:
I base that logic on my observations that once the score goes below 10%
for Lazarus, it is losing. It's extremely rare that it salvages a game
once the score goes below even 20%.
In which case I could argue
cool. do you have any examples from a 19x19 game? that's what
i was referring to when i said that i've never seen an MC player
play out a ko fight.
thanks,
s.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is an sgf-game of a long kofight on 9x9 between
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to make it clear, the case we want to fix is the case where many
bots are programmed to resign. Lazarus will resign when the score is
below 1% (and has remained so for a couple of moves in a row which is
probably just a superstition on my part to
Magnus Persson wrote:
Quoting Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 3-mrt-08, at 18:43, Don Dailey wrote:
I base that logic on my observations that once the score goes below
10%
for Lazarus, it is losing. It's extremely rare that it salvages a
game
once the score goes below even 20%.
Quoting steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
cool. do you have any examples from a 19x19 game? that's what
i was referring to when i said that i've never seen an MC player
play out a ko fight.
Valkyria is unfortunately way to weak for 19x19. My argument is more
that in principle MC programs
Quoting Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
I really believe the source of peoples confusion on this is believing
that the program starts playing ugly random moves as soon as it is
down a little. But in fact, when it gets into ugly mode it is
because the
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Magnus Persson wrote:
But here you are missing the point that close to 0% winning probability means
that it cannot win against random play. The opponent could lose only by
killing his own groups.
I don't know why you (and Don) keep bringing up the 0% against random
play
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
I really believe the source of peoples confusion on this is believing
that the program starts playing ugly random moves as soon as it is
down a little. But in fact, when it gets into ugly mode it is
because the score is very close to 0.0 or in some
Knowing that most current programs have a weakness
with regard to nakade, then any program which believes
it is behind ought to try and exploit such weaknesses,
no?
--- Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Magnus Persson wrote:
But here you are missing the point that close to 0% winning
probability means that it cannot win against random play. The
opponent could lose only by killing his own groups.
I don't know why you (and Don) keep bringing up the
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
When you get into opponent modeling, you have to understand your
opponent, because usually opponent modeling involves playing weaker
moves in exchange for better practical winning chances.
No, I don't want to do any opponent modelling.
And no, opponent
Quoting Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Magnus Persson wrote:
But here you are missing the point that close to 0% winning
probability means that it cannot win against random play. The
opponent could lose only by killing his own groups.
I don't know why you (and
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Magnus Persson wrote:
I do not see why an MC programs in general is biased towards winning with 10p
instead of a single 1p mistake.
It is not biased, that's my point.
It should be biased toward the '1pt' loss, if loss is unavoidable,
not for beauty but for the likelihood of
Magnus Persson wrote:
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to make it clear, the case we want to fix is the case where many
bots are programmed to resign. Lazarus will resign when the score is
below 1% (and has remained so for a couple of moves in a row which is
probably just a
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Magnus Persson wrote:
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to make it clear, the case we want to fix is the case where many
bots are programmed to resign. Lazarus will resign when the score is
below 1% (and has remained so for a couple of moves in a row
--- Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Magnus Persson wrote:
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to make it clear, the case we want to fix
is the case where many
bots are programmed to resign. Lazarus will
resign when the score is
below 1% (and has remained so
Whether human or computer, if one's opponent is in
time trouble, play on. I have won more than one game
in this manner, and it's just as good a win as any
other; both of us knew the time constraints.
I completely agree with that, but some view this as bad manners.I
take it a step
--- Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether human or computer, if one's opponent is in
time trouble, play on. I have won more than one
game
in this manner, and it's just as good a win as any
other; both of us knew the time constraints.
I completely agree with that, but
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Weston Markham wrote:
greater loss by the program. (You also characterize the opponent's
blunder in (b) as stupid, but I understand this to simply be a
subjective characterization based on the fact that it leads to a large
loss.)
In my own experience it is much easier to
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:01:52AM -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
My feeling is that in lost positions, the only thing we are trying to
accomplish is to make the moves more cosmetically appealing (normal) and
at best improve the programs chances of winning
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:01:02PM -0500, steve uurtamo wrote:
cool. do you have any examples from a 19x19 game? that's what
i was referring to when i said that i've never seen an MC player
play out a ko fight.
MoGo can indeed play out some rather spectacular ko fights;
unfortunately, I
I'd like to give here an example to make things clear.
The conditions are:
1) Using digitizing scheme that maps real score to [0,1] (or [-1,1])
so that the program cannot distinguish losing/winning by 0.5 or 10.5
pt at all.
2) Playouts include some foolish moves (usually with low
but not zero
26 matches
Mail list logo
