On Aug 31, 2009, at 10:12 PM, terry mcintyre wrote:
If you maintain a list of strings ( connected groups ) of stones
and their liberty counts - or perhaps the actual liberties - it
should be fairly quick to find a string with just one liberty.
I'm currently using pseudoliberties, so that
...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Peter Drake
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 7:51 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MoGo policy: capture stones anywhere?
On Aug 31, 2009, at 10:12 PM, terry mcintyre wrote:
If you maintain a list of strings ( connected groups ) of stones
But note that Fuego is using a GNU license, so if you incorporate any of the
Fuego code into your own app, you will have to make your own app available
under the GNU license and distribute source to your customers.
David
I strongly recommend reading the Fuego source code. Their ideas and
On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:11 AM, David Fotland wrote:
I don’t think any of the strong programs use pseudoliberties.
Interesting! Can those involved with other strong programs verify this?
My board code is descended from my Java re-implementation of libEGO. I
tried writing one using real
I never tried pseudoliberties in Valkyria. It actually stores arrays
of the liberties in addition to the count. This make programming
complex algorithms simple, but perhaps not the most efficient way.
-Magnus
Quoting Peter Drake dr...@lclark.edu:
On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:11 AM, David Fotland
2009/9/1 Peter Drake dr...@lclark.edu:
On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:11 AM, David Fotland wrote:
I don’t think any of the strong programs use pseudoliberties.
Interesting! Can those involved with other strong programs verify this?
My board code is descended from my Java re-implementation of libEGO. I
If you maintain a list of strings ( connected groups ) of stones and their
liberty counts - or perhaps the actual liberties - it should be fairly quick to
find a string with just one liberty. In any case, if I read the explanation
correctly, this happens infrequently, if several less-expensive
I maintain a list of strings with exactly one liberty. If I disable the
code to track one liberty groups and generate capture moves the speed goes
up from 17.7 K playouts/s to 18.1K playouts/s, so it's a small difference,
probably not statistically significant.
David
-Original Message-
13 games were played and the total score was 8-5 for CzechBot. I wonder
how would they play if on even grounds. The general game pattern was the
usual wild middlegame wrestling typical of MC, with CzechBot usually
getting large edge initially (70% winning probability and seemingly
unshakeable
Hi!
Today there was a short discussion about the strongest bot currently
online on KGS and I got curious whether ManyFaces or CzechBot (bleeding
edge MoGo) is stronger, so I made it play against ManyFaces.
CzechBot is running as dual-thread pondering MoGo on slightly loaded
dual-core
On
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/MoGo_Download.htmhttp://www.lri.fr/%7Egelly/MoGo_Download.htm,
under the FAQ section,
I found the bullet point:
MoGo continues playing after the game is over?: MoGo never consider
a pass unless you pass first. If you think the game is over, simply
pass.
Is
Hi,
Olivier answered for the new version.
On the downloadable version, I don't remember exactly (almost 2 years
back now...), but I think Mogo will still pass if all the other moves
are clearly loosing. So it should understand somehow Seki
situations.
If that is correct, the sentence is not
Obviously I should read better the emails before answering. Olivier
rightly answered for all versions.
Sorry,
Sylvain
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Sylvain Gellysylvain.ge...@m4x.org wrote:
Hi,
Olivier answered for the new version.
On the downloadable version, I don't remember exactly
When Mogo runs on the supercomputer with long-ish time limits, how big does
the search tree get?
Plotting the depth/number of nodes as a function of the thinking time might
be a good idea... No idea :-( I just remember that changing the number of
visits before adding a new node in the tree
]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Mogo MCTS is not UCT ?
I think it's now well known that Mogo doesn't use UCT.
I realize that i have no idea at all what Mogo do use for
it's MCTS.
A complicated formula mixing
(i) patterns (ii) rules (iii) rave values (iv) online
regard,
Denis FIDAALI.
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:55:03 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Mogo MCTS is not UCT ?
I think it's now well known that Mogo doesn't use UCT.
I realize that i have no idea at all what Mogo do use for
it's MCTS
On Dec 1, 2008, at 3:38 AM, Denis fidaali [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think it's now well known that Mogo doesn't use UCT.
I realize that i have no idea at all what Mogo do use for
it's MCTS.
There are only two things i dislike about UCT :
- It's slow to compute.
- It's deterministic
I
Let's assume that the UCT formula is
UCTValue(parent, n) = winrate + sqrt((ln(parent.visits))/(5*n.nodevisits))
(taken from sensei library)
What is the Upper confidence bound term ? That would'nt be
sqrt((ln(parent.visits))/(5*n.nodevisits)) ??
I doubt that exploring only the move with
I think it's now well known that Mogo doesn't use UCT.
I realize that i have no idea at all what Mogo do use for
it's MCTS.
A complicated formula mixing
(i) patterns (ii) rules (iii) rave values (iv) online statistics
Also we have a little learning (i.e. late parts of simulations
are evolved
On 1-dec-08, at 18:55, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
I think it's now well known that Mogo doesn't use UCT.
I realize that i have no idea at all what Mogo do use for
it's MCTS.
A complicated formula mixing
(i) patterns (ii) rules (iii) rave values (iv) online statistics
Isn't that technically
Is there any theoretical reasons for the Mogo Opening being built out of
self play, rather than by spending time increasing the number of
simulations
at the root, and after a time, keeping what seems to be the best ?
There are practical reasons: our approach can be used with humans or
to know about it ?
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:10:14 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Mogo Opening, Building Strategy ?
Is there any theoretical reasons for the Mogo Opening being built out of
self play, rather than by spending time increasing
By conjecture, i suppose you mean that
no experiments yet has been ran as
to assess this hypothesis ?
Yes. The other reasons were sufficient :-)
I think Sylvain (and maybe just everyone else) has tried
at some point to use a UCT decision bot, as a way to
get the simulation done. Then
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 13:38 +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
But, it is also clearly established that the building of the opening
book by self-play
clearly works, whereas it is roughly the same idea. I guess the reason
is the
difference of strength of the player - a MCTS (Monte-Carlo Tree
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've always had this idea that the best way to build an opening book is
the best way to build a general playing engine. You are trying to
solve the same exact problem - what is the best move in this position?
When building an opening book, you have the
It's true that building an opening book in an automated way can be done
off-line which gives us more resources. That's really the basis for
this thought that we are trying to solve the same problem.
As a thought experiment, imagine some day in the future, when
computers are 1 thousand times
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MCTS really feels to me like a superb book building algorithm.
Computer Chess books (at least the automated part) are built essentially
by taking millions of games from master play and picking out the ones
that seem to work
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 14:33 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MCTS really feels to me like a superb book building algorithm.
Computer Chess books (at least the automated part) are built essentially
by taking millions of games
You can read about some such novelties found using Rybka here:
http://www.rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Rybka+3+book
Don Dailey wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 14:33 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MCTS really feels to me like a
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wr
ote:
Therefore, the variance of the normal that best approximates the
distribution of both RAVE and
wins/(wins + losses) is the
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Jason House
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore, the variance of the normal that best approximates
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 27, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Jason House
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Jason House
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Jacques
PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason House
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:34 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MoGo v.s. Kim rematch
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 18:08 -0300, Douglas Drumond wrote:
Attached is a quick write up of what I was talking about
, 2008 4:34 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MoGo v.s. Kim rematch
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 18:08 -0300, Douglas Drumond wrote:
Attached is a quick write up of what I was talking about with some
math.
PS: Any tips on cleanup and making it a mini publication would
On 22, Sep 2008, at 10:50 PM, Hideki Kato wrote:
David Doshay: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded
from ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have
been a
good improvement because he felt that communication overhead was
David,
I've found a description that Infiniband was improved from 2 x 4X IB
(20 Gbps) to 8 x 8X IB (160 Gbps) on Jun 2008 at the bottom of 6th
page of a pdf about Huygens system:
https://www.os3.nl/_media/2007-2008/courses/inr/week7/sne_20080320_walter.pdf
I guess that is the better hardware
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Łukasz Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 17:58, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sep 22, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The results of the math are most easilly expressed in terms of inverse
Attached is a quick write up of what I was talking about with some math.
PS: Any tips on cleanup and making it a mini publication would be
appreciated. I've never published a paper before. Would this be too small?
Better add an abstract, but what I missed most was bibliography.
[]'s
It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded
from ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have been a
good improvement because he felt that communication overhead was
significant.
I thought Olivier had previously said there was very little overhead.
Quoting Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Playing out that fake ladder in the first game meant an instant loss.
Surprising. And embarassing. Any information on the number of
processors used?
The interesting question is if there is a silly bug or something more
sophisticated.
I have struggled
I'm curious about a couple of things in particular. Is this a bug and
how much time would be required for Mogo to have played the correct move
if it wasn't.
Of course I'm also interested in ways to solve this with less deep
searches or better play-outs.
- Don
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:59
Consider this as tentative, since I heard it about 3rd-hand, but I believe the
number of processors used to have been 3000.
Congratulations to the Mogo team; good luck improving your program to deal with
the ladder and life-and-death issues.
Looking forward to further information!
I have
I think AMAF is a feature not a bug. It's only a matter of how
judiciously it's applied.
Also, almost any evaluation feature in a game playing program is a bug -
meaning it is an imperfect approximation of what you really want.
Of course it could turn out that AMAF got them in trouble in
). A general solution is a little tricky.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 6:23 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MoGo v.s. Kim rematch
I think AMAF is a feature
On Sep 22, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In the case of the ladders the heavy playouts of Valkyria correctly
prunes playing out ladders for the loser. But sometimes in the
playouts the ladder is broken and after that there is a chance that
the stones escape
It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded
from ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have been a
good improvement because he felt that communication overhead was
significant.
Cheers,
David
On 22, Sep 2008, at 6:06 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
David Doshay: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It was 800, just like last time, but the networking had been upgraded
from ethernet to infiniband. Olivier said that this should have been a
good improvement because he felt that communication overhead was
significant.
Really previous Huygens used Ethernet?
Anyone knows the result, or better the game sgf?
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great news! Look forward to seeing it happen. I hope Mogo has some
great hardware.
- Don
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 15:54 -0700, David Doshay wrote:
MoGo and Myungwan Kim
2008 9:22 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] MoGo v.s. Kim rematch
Anyone knows the result, or better the game sgf?
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great news! ? Look forward to seeing it happen. ?I hope Mogo has some
great hardware.
- Don
On Fri, 2008
Great news! Look forward to seeing it happen. I hope Mogo has some
great hardware.
- Don
On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 15:54 -0700, David Doshay wrote:
MoGo and Myungwan Kim will hold an exhibition rematch at the Cotsen
Open on Saturday September 20. The exhibition will start at about 5pm
If this is aimed at clearing up ambiguity, you should state which way
the handicap was given.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Chaslot G (MICC) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dear all,
There were details that were unclear about the victory of MoGo.
Hence I created a website to
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If this is aimed at clearing up ambiguity, you should state which way the
handicap was given.
Oops! Now I need to clean off my keyboard! rotflmao!
Mmmm, we already have a hotly-contested estimate that computer programs will
play pros on an even basis in
From: Bob Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, my question. Sorry if this has already been beaten to death here. After
the match, one of the MoGo programmers mentioned that doubling the computation
led to a 63% win rate against the baseline version, and that so far this
scaling seemed to continue as
David Doshay wrote:
As an aside, the pro in question won the US Open, so comments about
him being a weak pro seem inappropriate. I spoke with him a number
of times, and I firmly believe that he took the match as seriously
as any other public exhibition of his skill that involves handicap
On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 11:37 -0700, Bob Hearn wrote:
Now, my question. Sorry if this has already been beaten to death here.
After the match, one of the MoGo programmers mentioned that doubling
the computation led to a 63% win rate against the baseline version,
and that so far this scaling
your calculation is for mogo to beat kim, according to kim and the
mogo team's estimates.
i think that a better thing to measure would be for a computer program
to be able to regularly beat amateurs of any rank without handicap.
i.e. to effectively be at the pro level.
for one thing, this is
Congratulations to Mogo team!
Twenty years from now, in ``a computer go history''
August 7th 2008: First victory of computer against pro with 9 handicap.
By the way, the surge in strength with the 800 processors with respect
to the quadcore (old) MogoBot, seemed relatively low, when comparing to
- Original Message
I still have this theory that when the level of the program is in the
high-dan reaches, it can take proper advantage of an opening book. Alas, it
may be a few years before enough processoring power is routinely available to
test this hypothesis. I know that we
Congrats to the MoGo team for getting system time at SARA for a match.
The architecture of the power5/power6 system (2007 july a power5
system was installed and that has been updated to power6 now),
is based upon having sufficient RAM and high bandwidth to i/o (for
each Gflop a specific
On Aug 9, 2008, at 4:16 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
- Original Message
I still have this theory that when the level of the program is in
the high-dan reaches, it can take proper advantage of an opening
book. Alas, it may be a few years before enough processoring power
is
Chris may be right with his implication that I talk too much these
days, but just to keep things honest, the quote below is not exactly
what I said. I said that others were wondering how much time it will
be before the programs are beating the pros. My thought was that
programs have
I still have this theory that when the level of the program is in the
high-dan reaches, it can take proper advantage of an opening book. Alas, it
may be a few years before enough processoring power is routinely available to
test this hypothesis. I know that we duffers can always ruin a
First of all, congratulations to the MoGo team.
As some have remarked already, the difference in level between the
fast games and the slow games was considerable. I didn't think the
level of the fast games was anything to boast about. And my opinion
is more informed than many other
Wow! I've been radio silent for a long time now working on other things
some years now, but watching the successes of the new approaches. What
incredible validation them...
Fantastic!
Jeffrey Greenberg
www.jeffrey-greenberg.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for posting the game Eric.
When I look back at it it's obvious to me S1 was much better. After
the likely sequence of R1, T3, T2, T4, S7, Q1, R7 Black still has a
serious weakness at N4.
I also still question W's play in the upper-right. I doubt W S15 was
a good move and think S19
On 8, Aug 2008, at 7:29 AM, Eric Boesch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
First of all, congratulations to the MoGo team.
Ditto!
Absolutely an amazing achievement!
Where I do differ in opinion from most is the remarks from the pro.
He
played
I enjoyed watching this game. Having trouble with KGS at the moment, or I'd
send a game record.
Having more time makes a very marked improvement in the quality of play, to a
degree which surprised me. The first two games, at 10 and something between 10
and 15 minutes ( Mogo thought it only had
]
- Original Message
From: Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2008 9:24:00 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
Great news. Well done to the Mogo team.
John, if I can just find 3000 CPUs lying around I might actually
To answer one other question: we were told that Mogo scales linearly. The
supercomputer has a very high-bandwidth interconnect. The Mogo team was unable
to release more architectural details at this time.
To reiterate on another question, from what the team said, no book, no joseki,
just raw
Well done, Mogo team !
terry mcintyre wrote:
moves,” like those in the lower right-hand corner, where Moyogo took
Typo :-)
Rémi
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
... no book, no joseki,...Mogo generated joseki from whole cloth.
...
seemed to me that, as Mogo was given more time, its opening and
middlegame play was markedly better.
If it is basically reinventing opening theory from scratch each time
then that makes sense. (Though I suppose there is
on 19x19 board, any thought on getting computer to win all the games with
handicap 9(may be started at 13), then improve to handicap 8,7...?
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
Has the program become that much stronger on 9x9 recently?
(Compared to the version was trying?)
*Parallelization: MPI == ~80%
I have put a report of the weekend's challenge games between MoGo and Catalin
Taranu 5p at http://www.computer-go.info/tc/
mainly to make it easier for people to find the game records.
Thanks a lot for that.
Some points are wrong however, below some informations about the errors.
The
The hardware in case of trouble, which has been used for two games, is
provided by Université Paris-Sud.
Precisely: LRI, Université Paris-Sud.___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
It was 2 cores 2.6GHz. (intel core2 duo).
sorry, I believed it was the tipi.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
For information on the mogo/pro challenge:
- during preliminary tests, mogo has won 4/0 against a very high level
human; at that time we were just very very very happy :-)
- some other humans, supposed to be weaker, have however
won some games at that time (before the nakade correction);
-
How well does the nakade improvement perform on 13x13?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
How well does the nakade improvement perform on 13x13?
no idea on 13x13, but it does not work on 19x19 (seemingly,
perhaps we just need tuning...).
Also, it works only, in terms of success rate against the old
mogo, for sufficiently large number of simulations per move.
Olivier
This event sounds very interesting!
Saturday:
3/23/08 3:00 PM
Saturday:
3/22/08 3:00 PM
is right?
Regards,
Hiroshi Yamashita
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Saturday:
3/23/08 3:00 PM
Saturday:
3/22/08 3:00 PM
is right?
Hi; it's saturday 22.
Olivier
(stress++)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Hi; it's saturday 22.
Thanks!
Regards,
Hiroshi Yamashita
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:14:49AM +, Nick Wedd wrote:
Saturday:
3/23/08 3:00 PM
Game I (9x9)
Game II 9x9
Game III 9x9
Played with 1.5 hours from the start of one round to the next
will this be with komi 7.5?
Petr Pasky Baudis
will this be with komi 7.5?
Yes. Previous records against Guo Juan, as far
as I know:
- 1/3 wins with komi 7.5
- 9/14 wins with komi 0.5 (mogo black,
i.e. komi in favor of mogo)
Best regards,
Olivier
___
computer-go mailing list
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
Previous records against Guo Juan, as far
as I know:
- 1/3 wins with komi 7.5
- 9/14 wins with komi 0.5 (mogo black,
i.e. komi in favor of mogo)
Has the program become that much stronger on 9x9 recently?
(Compared to the version was trying?)
--
robert
The million dollar question: How well does Mogo scale on this number
of processors?Can you give us at least some kind of generalization?
My understanding is that on quad core machines you get most of the
benefit by simply running parallel versions of the algorithm and sharing
the data
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 05:07:01PM +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
will this be with komi 7.5?
Yes. Previous records against Guo Juan, as far
as I know:
- 1/3 wins with komi 7.5
- 9/14 wins with komi 0.5 (mogo black,
i.e. komi in favor of mogo)
What computing power did have
What computing power did have that MoGo at its disposal?
4 cores, 2.4 GHz.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:35:25PM +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
What computing power did have that MoGo at its disposal?
4 cores, 2.4 GHz.
Thank you! That also puts the strength of CzechBot into some
perspective. :-)
Petr Pasky Baudis
Has the program become that much stronger on 9x9 recently?
(Compared to the version was trying?)
*Parallelization: MPI == ~80% vs no mpi in 9x9 (for same number of
cores).
*Monte-Carlo improvement == strongly depends on number of simulations
and number of cores (as the multi-core reduces
Would you guess that mogo is 2 or 3 ranks stronger at 19x19 with all
this hardware?
I would love to see a fair match, perhaps a serious 2 or 3 dan player
at 19x19 to be able to say with some certainty that Mogo has reached the
dan levels. This assumes Mogo has reached this level of
The million dollar question: How well does Mogo scale on this number
of processors?Can you give us at least some kind of generalization?
unfortunately, using more than 10 nodes is probably not very very useful
in 9x9, for the moment - but we have not tested that sufficiently,
and we have
Would you guess that mogo is 2 or 3 ranks stronger at 19x19 with all
this hardware?
I just claim that mpi-mogo wins with very high probability against
sequential-mogo in 19x19. But I'm afraid that the improvement is
disappointing against humans.
I hope better improvements are possible
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
Would you guess that mogo is 2 or 3 ranks stronger at 19x19 with all
this hardware?
I just claim that mpi-mogo wins with very high probability against
sequential-mogo in 19x19. But I'm afraid that the improvement is
disappointing against humans.
Hopefully it is still
It was 2 cores 2.6GHz. (intel core2 duo).
2008/3/21, Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What computing power did have that MoGo at its disposal?
4 cores, 2.4 GHz.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Hi all,
I added those downloads on the MoGo's download page:
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/MoGo_Download.htm
Cheers,
Sylvain
2008/2/9, Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For people requesting mogoRelease3 without the bug for long computation
times due to a float instead of a double:
Thanks Olivier,
I will take care that the source code is not distributed to anyone else.
- Don
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
For people requesting mogoRelease3 without the bug for long
computation times due to a float instead of a double:
http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/mogo (32 bits version, with
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
For people requesting mogoRelease3 without the bug for long computation
times due to a float instead of a double:
http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/mogo (32 bits version, with double instead of
float)
http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/mogo64 (64 bits version, double
Could Sylvain (or anyone who knows) talk about MoGo's pondering
strategy? Does it just build the tree as usual or does it speculate
on some number of moves and hope that the opponent choses one of
those?
MoGo just builds the tree as usual.
Olivier
Free, Closed, It prefers Linux.
On 10/25/07, Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is MoGo a commercial or free program? Open or closed source? Linux
version available?
Thanks in advance :)
-Josh
___
computer-go mailing list
Free but closed source.
There is a linux version, see
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/MoGo_Download.htm
On 10/25/07, Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is MoGo a commercial or free program? Open or closed source? Linux
version available?
Thanks in advance :)
-Josh
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
