Chrilly wrote:
I believe that MC will be the only way to write a GO program in the
near future leaving the other stuff in the dust (like Mogo has with 9x9
Monte Carlo Go.)This happened in computer chess several times,
someone came up with some breakthrough idea, proved it with actual
resul
Can't you test that today by giving an MC go program twice as much
thinking time as the classical program?
On 11/30/06, Rémi Coulom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chrilly wrote:
>>
>> I believe that MC will be the only way to write a GO program in the
>> near future leaving the other stuff in the
No, you can't test it that way. The thing with monte carlo is the
discovery and then very rapid progress of it. Even 2 years ago they
were not very good compared to what they are now.I haven't seen that
in
My statement was about a way forward - I'm not saying they are currently
much bette
>>> I believe that MC will be the only way to write a GO program in the
>>> near future leaving the other stuff in the dust ...
> ...
> I am certain it is for 19x19. Just look at the KGS games of Mogo on
> 19x19. I played one game against it, and won. I got the feeling it was
> slightly easier to
I think that MC will be useful on 19x19 if a clever way to restrict
it to
sub-game searches can be implemented.
Cheers,
David
On 30, Nov 2006, at 1:51 PM, Rémi Coulom wrote:
Chrilly wrote:
I believe that MC will be the only way to write a GO program in the
near future leaving the other
TECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Doshay
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:49 PM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Monte-Carlo is the future of 19x19
>
>
> I think that MC will be useful on 19x19 if a clever way to restrict
> it
age-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Doshay
> > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:49 PM
> > To: computer-go
> > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Monte-Carlo is the future of 19x19
> >
> >
> > I think that MC wi
; -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> David Doshay
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:49 PM
> > > To: computer-go
> > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Monte-Carlo i
Are there any details, or publications, on what Mogo is doing at 19x19?
I'd thought consensus opinion here was that monte carlo scaled to 19x19
badly.
Darren
A very stupid question: What is Mogo, who has it written?
Chrilly
___
computer-go mailin
Hello,
> I'm not trying to pick a fight. I was responding to a bunch of people who
> think that really fast random search with a stupid evaluation will crush
> traditional programs next year.
It is not what we said. At least it is not what I meant, and I think it is
true for the others.
> Mont
Le vendredi 1 décembre 2006 06:24, Don Dailey a écrit :
>
> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 18:40 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
> > How does monte carlo go do with fights that are trivial to evaluate, but
> > hard to search?
>
> It's easy to construct problems that any program cannot handle including
> yours
>
> It is not what we said. At least it is not what I meant, and
> I think it is
> true for the others.
I was reacting to the two statements below. I didn't realize that this
opinion was not generally shared by the people developing monte carlo
programs.
>> I believe that MC will be the onl
> I understand the definition of Monte Carlo. But when people talk about
> Monte Carlo go, they mean programs that evalutate random games, not
> professional games.
To be completely precise, professional games are also random games (if it was
not, all games between two players would always be
> I think I disagree
> with the statement "an evaluation that only
> understands final scores will not
> make a strong go program" depending on what you mean
> by random.
here i will interject by agreeing with the
statement that "an evaluation that only
understands final scores will not make a
Quoting David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
My point with the file I attached is not that it's a difficult position.
These fights are incredibly easy if you just add a few dozen lines of code
to count liberties correctly. To me it's as if a weak chess player says, my
program doesn’t need to und
Hi David,
Since I made my last post to you, several people have responded. They
have made my point and I agree with your point.
It's foolish not to take advantage of domain specific information and
nothing prevents a monte carlo program from doing that as you can see.
Having said that, I ha
Le Vendredi 01 Décembre 2006 00:20, Darren Cook a écrit :
> >>> I believe that MC will be the only way to write a GO program in the
> >>> near future leaving the other stuff in the dust ...
> >
> > ...
> > I am certain it is for 19x19. Just look at the KGS games of Mogo on
> > 19x19. I played one
On 11/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To give an idea of the scale (at least for MoGo), 70k simulations/move (with
the best parameters) against gnugo 3.6/level 8 gives 89% in 9x9, 68% in
13x13, 32% in 19x19.
This is still not assessment of scalability. Each of those 70k
sim
Hello,
> On 11/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To give an idea of the scale (at least for MoGo), 70k simulations/move
> > (with the best parameters) against gnugo 3.6/level 8 gives 89% in 9x9,
> > 68% in 13x13, 32% in 19x19.
>
> This is still not assessment of scalability.
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Also, there are a lot to improvements to do in MC in a quite short term, so I
share the point of view of Rémi, Don and some others when saying that MC
programs will fill the gap with classical programs in 19x19. And this can be
soon. Now, it is the work of the "classic
> > I think I disagree
> > with the statement "an evaluation that only
> > understands final scores will not
> > make a strong go program" depending on what you mean
> > by random.
>
> here i will interject by agreeing with the
> statement that "an evaluation that only
> understands final scores wi
> In fact, I think we say the same thing, simply using
> different meaning for the
> same word. By "random" you mean "uniformly random",
> and I don't mean that, I
> simply mean random (in the sense of random
> variable).
what distribution is currently being used?
s.
___
Le Vendredi 01 Décembre 2006 21:26, steve uurtamo a écrit :
> > In fact, I think we say the same thing, simply using
> > different meaning for the
> > same word. By "random" you mean "uniformly random",
> > and I don't mean that, I
> > simply mean random (in the sense of random
> > variable).
>
> w
23 matches
Mail list logo
