Jacques,
(Offline)
Are you saying that you copy the whole board for each move,
when you have a stack of boards?
Thanks,
Michael Wing
Well, every implementation is different. In its slowest
mode, my board stores information about neighbor stones
in each cell. It has a stack of boards and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jacques,
(Offline)
Are you saying that you copy the whole board for each move,
when you have a stack of boards?
My program Lazarus does that - it's not very expensive and undo is free.
However in play-outs I update the state directly without saving for
speed.
Hi Michael
Another cost is undo. Superko requires undo, unless
you want store a hash value with each chain of stones.
I am not sure exactly what undo costs, but lets say
5% to 10%.
Well, every implementation is different. In its slowest
mode, my board stores information about neighbor stones
Self-atari is never referred to as suicide. Let's not start now. But you're right self-atari in the playouts is a more interesting topic. You have to allow
it sometimes because it is the correct move sometimes.
John Fan wrote:
A question on this topic. When we discuss about suicide, are we
So it's possible to create a triple-ko repetition, take that move sequence
and find
a non-triple-ko situation that uses the exact same repeated move sequence ?
I am afraid I don't follow. Please rephrase.
In my words: you have a sequence of moves (M0) leading,
to a certain position (P0).
A question on this topic. When we discuss about suicide, are we referring to
the real suicide, or self-atari? I think in some discussions it is referring
to the real suicide. In other discussions, seems to be referring to
self-atarai.
If we are talking about real suicide, I do not see any point
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:36:09PM -0500, Michael Williams wrote:
I have not tried it myself, but I'm guessing it will not improve your
engine. The cost of testing for simple ko is negligible and allowing it
will probably prolong the playouts.
I am not far enough with
John Fan wrote:
If we are talking about real suicide, I do not see any point to allow
the real suicide in the play out. What would be the gain if we allow the
real suicide in the play out.
The answer to this question has been given at least 3 times:
Speed.
It can take time to disallow a
I'm sorry but I have no fixed global ip (my pcs are at my home, not
at univ). But I strongly believe 32 bit applications can run on 64
bit OS.
I will try to run currently running four bots and your clients
as many as possible simultaneously because I've just built up an
additional 2 core pc.
Jason House wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008 11:30 AM, Raymond Wold wrote:
With simple ko checking, around 3% of games ended in infinite loop with
double ko.
Double ko's should not have an infinite loop. black takes ko A. White
takes ko B. Black can't retake ko B, so must fill ko A. White
On Jan 18, 2008 11:30 AM, Raymond Wold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My own experience when experimenting with random playouts were that
without ko checking at all, around 30% of games ended in infinite loop
with both sides having one (non-eye-filling) move possible, to retake
the ko.
My
An alternative to matching board hashes is to test for repeated move
sequences.
No. repeated position != repeated sequence.
Since one stone is added to the board with each move,
a repetition can only exist between two moves if exactly that number
of stones was captured inbetween (+- pass
An alternative to matching board hashes is to test for repeated move sequences. You need a separate test for each sequence length, but the most common one
should be the shortest one.
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:36:09PM -0500, Michael Williams wrote:
I have not tried it
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
Michael Williams wrote:
It is a very nice graph. I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
You and me both!
Just a couple of other comments:
The graph was smoothed with gnuplot's smooth bezier function - but the
raw graph
Michael Wing wrote:
In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
would lose 1.5 ELO points.
In programs that somehow maintain lists of legal moves
or even probability distribution functions over the legal
moves, avoiding suicide is
Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Michael Williams wrote:
It is a very nice graph. I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
You and me both!
Just a couple of other comments:
The graph was smoothed with gnuplot's smooth bezier function - but
the
raw
Hi, Mr.Song
-Original Message-
Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it
?
The suicide rule was tested in the Mainland Chinese rules in
1984, and abandoned in 1986 Rules.
It is used in Ying's rules now.
Ying's Rules is one of the area rules.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Song
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?
Yes. But suicide is legal under Ing (SST) rules, and under New Zealand
rules.
An unscrupulous program, finding itself in a poor position while playing
under Ing
On Jan 17, 2008, at 3:44 AM, Song wrote:
Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?
Yes, it is also illegeal under AGA and CGOS rules.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
I had someone complain several months ago that CGOS doesn't understand
superko and has a bug. It turned out that their program fell on a
superko that was really deep.It was rather interesting to see this
particular game.I think it's fairly likely with 2 deterministic
programs but
Hi, All. Thank you very much.
So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules,
but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,
I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO
world.
Then why we are discussing it so seriously ?
Song
Nick Wedd
Song wrote:
Hi, All. Thank you very much.
So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules,
but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,
I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO
world.
Then why we are discussing it so seriously ?
On Jan 17, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
However, I don't remember if I calibrated the graph or whether it's
arbitrary.It seems like I had a version of gnugo as an anchor,
but I
don't see it in the graph.I could have simply extrapolated from
CGOS
for one of the version.
I
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
However, I don't remember if I calibrated the graph or whether it's
arbitrary.It seems like I had a version of gnugo as an anchor, but I
don't see it in the graph.I could have simply extrapolated from CGOS
for one
Don, the data was derived from self-play, wasn't it?
Yes, it was derived from self play.
I also did a study at one time where I tried these doublings against a
stable gnugo version and got very similar results - the program went
from being crushed by gnugo (rarely winning a game) to the
If you look at the rating table on the cgos web page you will see that
600 ELO difference corresponds to about 97% winning percentage.At
the levels I tested against gnugo a single game per 100 could swing it
50 ELO. Since it did not lose a single game you could assume that it
was either
computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 7:21 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Hi, All. Thank you very much.
So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules,
but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,
I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jacques Basaldúa,
I say that adding superko adds 6% or so for 2 reasons.
About 2% is adding it to the hash table. About 4% is
computing the zobrist hash, which is mainly used for
superko.
But I suggest you should use superko in the tree portion - just not in
the
Song wrote:
I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO
world.
Then why we are discussing it so seriously ?
If you ask only because of suicide, then discussing it is interesting
because other rulesets might still be used on some occasions and because
I found a draft of what I believe was one of the computer-go
postings.I'll summarize again for anyone who missed it (and I'm not
sure I posted it.) :
I did do a 7x7 test against gnugo. I used a komi of 8.5 which I
believe is a win for black with perfect play. I base this on the
fact
Jacques Basaldúa,
I say that adding superko adds 6% or so for 2 reasons.
About 2% is adding it to the hash table. About 4% is
computing the zobrist hash, which is mainly used for
superko.
Another cost is undo. Superko requires undo, unless
you want store a hash value with each chain of stones.
I
On Jan 17, 2008, at 6:11 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
However, I don't remember if I calibrated the graph or whether it's
arbitrary.It seems like I had a version of gnugo as an
anchor, but I
don't see it in the graph.I could have simply
in the nursery.”
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Michael
Michael Williams wrote:
It is a very nice graph. I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
With some help, I could redo this experiment and add:
1 or 2 more levels.
A version of gnugo with known strength.
and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
test on
of Commons [June 15, 1874]
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Michael Williams wrote:
It is a very nice graph. I wish we could
.”
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Michael Williams wrote
, 1874]
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Michael Williams wrote:
It is a very nice graph. I wish we could see the next 11
computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Michael Williams wrote:
It is a very nice graph. I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
With some help, I could redo this experiment and add:
1
Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important one
because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.
--nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course much
stronger but requires more time) instead of --time
no pondering, as you want fixed level
]
- Original Message
From: Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:48:24 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important
one
obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]
- Original Message
From: Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:48:24 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go
: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:48:24 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important
one
because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.
--nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course
much
Olivier,
How much memory does mogo require if I crank up the number of
simulations pretty high? Does it allocate dynamically or work from a
fixed pool? What happens if there is not enough memory?
I could include Mogo in the study too, not just as a single data point
if I can get 13
Will Mogo with nbThreads=4 and --nbTotalSimulations 11 yield the
same results as nbThreads=1 and --nbTotalSimulations 11,
presumably in approximately 1/4 the time?
--nbTotalSimulations gives the number of simulations for the first thread;
the others are stopped by time. As threads are
Thank you for your response,however I want to test mogo at a FIXED
level - we will be testing on different hardware and we don't want to
use time-contol.
Is there a way to properly set it for a fixed number of play-outs?
Also, we will NOT be using multiple processors.
Mogo will just
Perfect! I will adjust the level so that it plays as strong as
possible on CGOS without taking a risk of getting into time trouble on
modest hardware. Then I can make Mogo the anchor player.
- Don
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an
@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:48:24 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important
one
because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS
How much memory does mogo require if I crank up the number of
simulations pretty high? Does it allocate dynamically or work from a
fixed pool? What happens if there is not enough memory?
I think you won't have any troubles with that, unless the
hardware is very old.
There is a pruning
I'm experimenting with the number of simulations at fairly low levels to
find a point of equilibrium for FatMan vs Mogo.In other words, I
want 13 versions of each program and I want to find a level where the
playing strength is roughly comparable.
I will try doing 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 and 1/16
Any estimates of when this problem is likely to surface? Is a version
available which is more suitable for greater numbers of simulations?
We can compile that easily, but
I don't know if I can distribute it
(administrativly). To be checked...
Olivier
Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:24:22 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Never mind, I found what I want:
gnugo --mode gtp
Don Dailey wrote:
Never mind, I found what I want:
gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules
--min-level 8 --max-level 8 --positional-superko
Forget about --score aftermath. It does absolutely nothing when
combined with --mode gtp.
/Gunnar
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Don Dailey wrote:
Thanks, will do that!
Someone once told me that level 8 is faster and plays just as well.
Is
there any truth to that? I am planning to run this study at level
10.
Level 8 is certainly faster and it ought to be weaker
Hi Don,
I'm now running mogo-pr-1cpu on my quad core box, Intel Q6600 3GHz
with 4GB RAM and gnugo-3.7.11-l10F, gnugo-3.7.10-l10F and FatMan-1
on an AMD athlon64 2GHz with 1GB RAM, as reference programs on cgos
9x9. I can provide these two boxes for your experiment. Then, how
long will it
Do you run linux?
I already have a tarball which has almost everything you need - and it
includes the binaries and has each player set up in the registry.
The only thing missing is an automated scheme to get the result files to
me. I'm looking to see if I can get an ftp server working.
It
Don Dailey wrote:
Thanks, will do that!
Someone once told me that level 8 is faster and plays just as well. Is
there any truth to that? I am planning to run this study at level 10.
Level 8 is certainly faster and it ought to be weaker but I can't say
anything about how much.
/Gunnar
Thanks, will do that!
Someone once told me that level 8 is faster and plays just as well. Is
there any truth to that? I am planning to run this study at level 10.
- Don
Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
Never mind, I found what I want:
gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath
Jan 2008 7:21 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Hi, All. Thank you very much.
So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules,
but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,
I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO
-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 7:21 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Hi, All. Thank you very much.
So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules,
but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,
I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules
I was doing a small scalability test own my own with mogo on 7x7 with 8.5 komi and so far the most interesting game is mogo losing as back given 64 seconds per
move against a white player using 32 seconds per move. With this komi, black is currently winning 72% of the games (with player
]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Michael Williams wrote:
It is a very nice graph. I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
With some help, I could redo this experiment and add:
1 or 2 more
Yes, Fedora Core 5-64bit for AMD and Ubuntu 7.10-64bit for Intel.
Which is better do you think, however, to stop current running bots on
cgos and run your clients instead OR to keep current bots runnig?
As Terry already answered to you.
-Hideki
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you run
I know it won't work - Terry has tried. But we are going to try to fix
it up.
- Don
Don Dailey wrote:
I don't think my prepared files will run on 64 bit linux but you can try.
- Don
Hideki Kato wrote:
Yes, Fedora Core 5-64bit for AMD and Ubuntu 7.10-64bit for Intel.
Which is
Sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 7:21 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Hi, All. Thank you very much.
So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules,
but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,
I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most
the simualtion anyway one want?to as long as it gives a good evaluation value.
DL
-Original Message-
From: Song [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 7:21 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
Hi, All. Thank you very much.
So Suicide
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:36:09PM -0500, Michael Williams wrote:
I have not tried it myself, but I'm guessing it will not improve your
engine. The cost of testing for simple ko is negligible and allowing it
will probably prolong the playouts.
I am not far enough with my engine to test yet,
Yes, Fedora Core 5-64bit for AMD and Ubuntu 7.10-64bit for Intel.
Which is better do you think, however, to stop current running bots on
cgos and run your clients instead OR to keep current bots runnig?
As Terry already answered to you.
-Hideki
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you run
Song wrote:
If the GO rules standardized on one ruleset that forbid suicide,
At that time, do you still disscuss suicide and use it in game evaluation ?
Research is free; it does not need to impose itself unnecessary
restrictions. So - yes.
--
robert jasiek
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.
I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for me,
as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)
The question is Why do you do it?
a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.
I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for me,
as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)
The question is Why do you do it?
a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:59PM +0100, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
There are no advantages to allowing suicide, it is simply expensive for me
in terms of speed to forbid it in playouts. If this is not the case for
your board structure then you will probably want to forbid suicide.
I do not
David Doshay wrote:
There are two reasons to consider suicide and its detection..
1) Some rule sets allow suicide. In such a rule set a suicide can
be the best move because it can be a huge ko threat.
2) As David Fotland has pointed out many times, when competing
under rules that allow
We can use math to shed some light on the topic:
* Assume that doubling the speed of a machine
increases the rank of a program by 100 ELO,
as Don has previously concluded.
* Then we have the following table of approximate
costs, which comes from the equation y = 100 * 2^x
cost - lost ELO
On 16-jan-08, at 17:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can use math to shed some light on the topic:
* Assume that doubling the speed of a machine
increases the rank of a program by 100 ELO,
as Don has previously concluded.
* Then we have the following table of approximate
costs, which
I think you are off on the relative importance of superko and suicide
and it seems that your values are rather arbitrary - just made up.
First of all, we are only talking about detection in the play-outs, not
in the tree search portion.
In the play-outs, it is very important to avoid moves
Mark,
Don did say that doubling the speed of a machine is
100 ELO. See the thread at
http://www.mail-archive.com/computer-go@computer-go.org/msg05358.html
I believe that beating someone 2:1 is 100 ELO.
So, if ignoring suicide is at most 1 ELO, then it doesn't matter.
Michael Wing
P.S. I should
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
For instance since is legal to resign,? we could randomly include this
possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
power of the play-outs.
Hmm... It would speed things up, though. And if you made
Don,
I forgot to mention one additional consideration.
My top-level driver does check rules for suicide
and superko, even though the engine may or may not.
At the top-level, if the engine chooses a bad move,
then the driver will use the next best move instead.
(Repeat as necessary) So it will not
Mark,
I wasn't stating a precise value for a doubling when I said 100 ELO.
But it appears that it is actually worth a bit more than 100 ELO for a
doubling.I did a massive study of this at one point a year or
more ago with thousands of games with UCT based Lazarus program and the
Now that is thinking outside the box :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
For instance since is legal to resign,? we could randomly include this
possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
power of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don,
I forgot to mention one additional consideration.
My top-level driver does check rules for suicide
and superko, even though the engine may or may not.
At the top-level, if the engine chooses a bad move,
then the driver will use the next best move instead.
On Jan 16, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I have often wondered if UCT and Monte Carlo play-outs would have even
been discovered a few years ago.It could very well be that this
technology HAD to wait for today. Mogo and CrazyStone would not be
impressive on a 386.
I heard about
: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:54:30 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
David Doshay wrote:
There are two reasons to consider suicide and its detection..
1) Some rule sets allow suicide. In such a rule
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:26PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
There is no question that there are positions where suicide or eye
filling are correct.
I know suicide can be used as a ko-threat, but are there *any* other
positions where it would be a correct move?
If not, then it makes sense to
uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:06:09 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
maybe this doesn't sound right to everyone,
but i thought that suicide and filling one-point
eyes were both things that could be highly
terry mcintyre wrote:
That key play might even have been discouraged by some pattern.
MoGo probably does not allow self-ataris. If you do not allow self-atari
you cannot see such a shape is dead.
--
GCP
___
computer-go mailing list
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:26PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
There is no question that there are positions where suicide or eye
filling are correct.
I know suicide can be used as a ko-threat, but are there *any* other
positions where it would be a correct move?
Yes,
On Jan 16, 2008 10:42 PM, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can not think of any situation where filling a one-point eye would be a
correct move (provided that it is a real eye and not a false one).
Can anyone come with concrete examples?
Sure, for example with the following shape
Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 10:42 PM, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can not think of any situation where filling a one-point eye
would be a
correct move (provided that it is a real eye and not a false one).
Can anyone come with
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heikki Levanto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:26PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
There is no question that there are positions where suicide or eye
filling are correct.
I know suicide can be used as a ko-threat, but are there *any* other
Don Dailey wrote:
Mark,
I wasn't stating a precise value for a doubling when I said 100 ELO.
But it appears that it is actually worth a bit more than 100 ELO for a
doubling.I did a massive study of this at one point a year or
more ago with thousands of games with UCT based Lazarus
I used 7.5 for that study.You are probably looking at the study
where I use 7x7 in which case the program was too strong to see a good
curve - 8.5 komi is won almost always by black, 9.5 by white if I
remember correctly with 7x7.
Let me see if I can actually find the old graph I created - the
It is a very nice graph. I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
Don Dailey wrote:
I found the graph, but I can't find the data and the details, although
it will be on one of the postings. I think this was at least a year
ago, perhaps 2.
Here is what I remember:
I played 11
94 matches
Mail list logo
