On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 17:00 -0400, Robert Waite wrote:
> * If my ego were hurt by the fact that Mogo scales better, I
> * could easily construct a theory that explained it away. This is what we
> * tend to do when we don't want to believe something.That's what I
>
> * think is being done with
* If my ego were hurt by the fact that Mogo scales better, I
* could easily construct a theory that explained it away. This is what we
* tend to do when we don't want to believe something.That's what I
* think is being done with the argument that improvement against computers
* doesn't transla
>
> The scary strong Rybka program claims to be weak tactically. The
> developers say that problem solving skill does not correlate strongly
> with playing strength and they don't tune or care about that.
I've found the same thing for go. I have a large tactical problem set, and
I use it
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 16:26 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> Steve,
>
> If you go here:
>
>
> http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/digest.txt
>
> http://cgos.boardspace.net/13x13/digest.txt
>
> http://cgos.boardspace.net/19x19/digest.txt
>
>
> you will get a compact digest of all games played that
Steve,
If you go here:
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/digest.txt
http://cgos.boardspace.net/13x13/digest.txt
http://cgos.boardspace.net/19x19/digest.txt
you will get a compact digest of all games played that is up to date
within a few hours at any particular moment. With awk, sort, gr
out of curiosity, can you estimate the largest number of opponents
that all played each other a reasonable number of times? (i.e. what's
the largest subset of opponents and number of games that you
can choose so that everyone started playing everyone else in
the subset without anyone leaving for g
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 08:37 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
> Regarding a rating system which provides more dimensions, may I suggest a
> test suite of problems at different levels?
>
> Convert life-and-death problems to "solve this problem or lose the game"
> situations which can be properly app
this approach would also severely limit the number
of players that could be involved in the rating system,
since it would require manipulating an 2*(N choose 2)
matrix, where N is the number of players involved.
s.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:35 PM, steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you c
If you ever want to try, I can give you the data for cgos in compact
form that you can experiment with (one line per game - 2 names and 1
result + date) or you can simply extract them from the archived games.
- Don
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 17:44 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> This was my post about
you could use HMMs as long as you
didn't mind retraining (and thus starting your ratings
system over from scratch) every time you added or
subtracted a new player. it'd be relatively fast in any case.
s.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Rémi Coulom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was my post
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 17:44 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> This was my post about multi-dimensional Elo:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/computer-go@computer-go.org/msg06267.html
>
> I have not tried it since that time.
Wow, I can't believe I forgot about this one. It was less than a year
ago that yo
This was my post about multi-dimensional Elo:
http://www.mail-archive.com/computer-go@computer-go.org/msg06267.html
I have not tried it since that time.
Rémi
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/li
Regarding a rating system which provides more dimensions, may I suggest a test
suite of problems at different levels?
Convert life-and-death problems to "solve this problem or lose the game"
situations which can be properly appreciated by monte carlo programs, and make
a guesstimate of the elo
Oh yes, the graphs are still there:
http://cgos.boardspace.net/study/
http://cgos.boardspace.net/study/13/
- Don
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 10:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 09:38 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> > Don Dailey wrote:
> > > I don't really believe the ELO model is
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 08:21 -0400, Michael Williams wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > Assuming a program
> > doesn't forfeit in stupid ways, they NEVER have bad days, wake up on
> > the wrong side of the bed, get in a fight with their spouse, get
> > inspired to play well on a particular day or de
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 09:38 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > I don't really believe the ELO model is "very wrong." I only believe
> > it is a mathematical model that is "somewhat" flawed for chess and
> > presumable also for other games. Do you have an alternative that might
>
Don Dailey wrote:
Assuming a program
doesn't forfeit in stupid ways, they NEVER have bad days, wake up on
the wrong side of the bed, get in a fight with their spouse, get
inspired to play well on a particular day or depressed on another day.
It doesn't feel pain, or pity, or remorse. And i
Don Dailey wrote:
I don't really believe the ELO model is "very wrong." I only believe
it is a mathematical model that is "somewhat" flawed for chess and
presumable also for other games. Do you have an alternative that might
be more accurate?
- Don
I don't have very precise data about
18 matches
Mail list logo
