[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play
Small correction,
i meant m-systems.com
not what i wrote down. correct is m-systems.com
At 22:36 3-12-2004 +0100, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>At 14:13 2-12-2004 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
>> X-Original-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
>>
>h=received:return-path:reply-to:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version
>:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority:x-maile
>r:x-mimeole:in-reply-to:importance;
>>
>b=FfHgK4ceM+ueOHdW0RJiFM2TPHtBkOfUmzRo8Vkmm96vYJJkLKDJxq/XCKvftzUY8jnxb4yN+p
>V+f3O4kWVdb4ja0loySsw7YmdMy/pHAwuS7YXf7zHq54zeotGk1Z4iGuaSddtjd5PzixnGmOz75e
>5x9W0gfpd5/yYuNmWRdvg=
>> From: "Mark Boon" <tesujisoftware@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:42:51 -0200
>> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
>> Importance: Normal
>> Reply-To: tesujisoftware@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, computer-go
><computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sender: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Erik van der
>> > Werf
>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 17:01
>> > To: computer-go
>> > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play
>> >
>> > Personally I think that at the current level of computer Go 9x9 is very
>> > interesting. After all beginners start on 9x9, not on 19x19. If we
>> > cannot even build a decent 9x9 player how can we ever hope to
succeed on
>> > 19x19?
>>
>> That may be true but still not relevant. If we're mainly interested in
>> making a Go program play 19x19 (which I think most of us are) then
>'solving'
>> 9x9 does not guarantee to bring us much closer to our goal of making a
>19x19
>> program. The effort involved in making a program play well on 9x9 may
>not be
>> a good investment when your goal is really 19x19.
>>
>>I'm not so sure. The thing that's really appealing about 9x9 is that
>>your whole testing/learning cycle can go much faster. I think it's a
>>really nice way to start with, for example, programs that try to
>>learn. I really believe most of the lessons learned could be
>>tranfered more or less directly to any board size. So the cycle
>>might be:
>>
>> 1. Figure out what and how you need to build a strong 7x7/9x9 go program.
>> 2. Build and test it.
>> 3. Reiterate with bigger boards.
>>
>>I'm not sure anyone has even created a really strong 7x7 GO program
>>have they? Can any of us create a 7x7 that can hold it's own against
>>any player? I doubt it. I think it's not so crazy to try to get that
>>right first.
>
>Here i agree 50% and disagree 50%. Commercially i disagree.
>
>I just played my first go game after a year against smartgo at a 19x19 and
>i can definitely positively again write here that 19x19 is *so much*
>different from 9x9 go.
>
>In 19x19 the corners are very important. In 9x9 overall board control is
>more important. What works in 9x9 go doesn't work at all in 19x19.
>
>However i do agree that from search viewpoint the lessons learned in 9x9
>are very important.
>
>Yet it is a fulltime job to develop a good program for 9x9 whereas such
>effort can be better spent to 19x19 as the majority of the time goes to the
>move selection and evaluation anyway.
>
>It's clear that at todays fast hardware when puttin geffort in 9x9 you can
>play it at a very strong level far stronger than coming 10 years will be
>achieved in 19x19.
>
>Again i'm not saying 'world champs level'. Current chessprograms despite
>what the programmers all cry by giving a few GM's some money to play
>against their products after signing a certain contract with certain
>conditions, they aren't that level either.
>
>>Probably one would use techniques that remain applicable to bigger
>>boards. So things like brute force search on 7x7 boards might not
>>really be a quickly scalable approach.
>>- Don
>
>How do you find a strong go playing programmer who is willing to waste his
>time onto a small board program?
>
>The combination strong player, good programmer and good game programmer is
>real hard to find on this planet. And usually not that rich that he can toy
>the rest of his life without any worries.
>
>Perhaps approach Amir Ban for that.
>
>I read on the internet some wallstreet news that the company
>(www.msystems.com) was sold for over half a billion and he's suing them now
>for around a quarter of a billion or so :)
>
>If Amir declines then there is little hope to offer to you :)
>
>Vincent
>_______________________________________________
>computer-go mailing list
>computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/