Re: [computer-go] CGOS 19x19 down?
It looks like the server is down again. It's too bad since there were so many strong programs connected. I hope it comes back up soon. I have tried to solve that, but this is seemingly due to a general failure of the network there (or no more electricity perhaps...), what is beyond what I can solve with a remote connection. Sorry for that, Olivier ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] A thought about Bot-server communications
On Dec 11, 2007 4:00 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik van der Werf wrote: On Dec 10, 2007 6:48 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Go however, even if the fundamental game is unchanged you may be playing illegal moves if you are not aware of the superko situation. And you think superko is part of the fundamental game??? Well, I seem to be saying here that it is NOT part of the fundamental game. I'm sorry, then I misunderstood what you were trying to say. BTW Several authors here use the words repetition and superko as synonyms; I believe this is misleading. They are essentially synonyms - I don't see your point. I think you've just proven my point ;-) In my opinion repetition is a more neutral word. It avoids mixing conditions with consequences. There is some question about how you define a position (a board state, or a board configuration i.e. SSK or PSK) but you can nitpick if you want and say that superko has nothing to do with positions repeating but I think when a position repeats it's superko. And when you say it's superko my first thought is that the game is over because one player just made an illegal move... Are you just trying to nitpick semantics? In a loose informal context this would certainly be nitpicking (e.g. the difference between 'ko' and 'ko-rule'). However when it is about formalizing rules it really helps to be precise and minimize ambiguity (I would think TT-proponents should at least agree with me on this). I really do think it is important to distinguish clearly between conditions (what constitutes a repetition) and consequences (direct loss / continued analysis / no result, etc.). Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Go++ in gogui
Hi, Does someone know what the arguments of Go++ are to start it with gogui? --mode gtp and -gtp are not working. Ben ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Microsoft Research Lectures: Akihiro Kishimoto
David Stern wrote: Akihiro's talk has finally been put online at: http://content.digitalwell.washington.edu/msr/external_release_talks_12_05_2005/15004/lecture.htm Good lecture. Is there a link to a binary (or source code) somewhere ? I can't find any TsumeGo Explorer website. At least, not in English. Jacques. * * ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] A thought about Bot-server communications
There is some question about how you define a position (a board state, or a board configuration i.e. SSK or PSK) but you can nitpick if you want and say that superko has nothing to do with positions repeating but I think when a position repeats it's superko. And when you say it's superko my first thought is that the game is over because one player just made an illegal move... Are you just trying to nitpick semantics? In a loose informal context this would certainly be nitpicking (e.g. the difference between 'ko' and 'ko-rule'). However when it is about formalizing rules it really helps to be precise and minimize ambiguity (I would think TT-proponents should at least agree with me on this). I really do think it is important to distinguish clearly between conditions (what constitutes a repetition) and consequences (direct loss / continued analysis / no result, etc.). Ok, let's get into semantics. Is superko an illegal move? Is it simply forbidden or is it part of the rules that you lose immediately if you play it? In card games that is called an irregularity and there are separate rules to deal with these. If you make some other illegal move what happens?For instance if you take one the opponents stones and place it on the board?Do you lose immediately or do you get your hand slapped with the objection that you can't make that move, play something real! Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] A thought about Bot-server communications
On Dec 11, 2007 2:18 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is some question about how you define a position (a board state, or a board configuration i.e. SSK or PSK) but you can nitpick if you want and say that superko has nothing to do with positions repeating but I think when a position repeats it's superko. And when you say it's superko my first thought is that the game is over because one player just made an illegal move... Are you just trying to nitpick semantics? In a loose informal context this would certainly be nitpicking (e.g. the difference between 'ko' and 'ko-rule'). However when it is about formalizing rules it really helps to be precise and minimize ambiguity (I would think TT-proponents should at least agree with me on this). I really do think it is important to distinguish clearly between conditions (what constitutes a repetition) and consequences (direct loss / continued analysis / no result, etc.). Ok, let's get into semantics. Is superko an illegal move? Again, I regard superko as a concept that refers to a special class of rules for dealing with repetition. So no, it is not an illegal move. Is it simply forbidden or is it part of the rules that you lose immediately if you play it? In card games that is called an irregularity and there are separate rules to deal with these. If you make some other illegal move what happens?For instance if you take one the opponents stones and place it on the board?Do you lose immediately or do you get your hand slapped with the objection that you can't make that move, play something real! OC we have general tournament rules and rules for dealing with unsportsmanships behavior... However, slapping you on the hand and giving you the option to alter your move does not fundamentally change anything to the assumed illegality of a particular move. For optimal play you still had to play elsewhere, hence for a sufficiently informed player the effect is the same. Traditional rules (without superko) can have fundamentally different game outcomes. Social etiquette alone does not suffice to remove these differences. The fundamental problem with superko is failure to distinguish between balanced and unbalanced cycles. In an unbalanced cycle, such as send-2-return-1, your suggestion you can't make that move, play something real! is fine. In a balanced cycle, such as triple-ko, this is not the obvious thing to say. Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go++ in gogui
Are you sure it has a public GTP interface? On Dec 11, 2007 6:53 AM, Ben Lambrechts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does someone know what the arguments of Go++ are to start it with gogui? --mode gtp and -gtp are not working. Ben ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go++ in gogui
No, but I hope so, because I find the interface of gogui better than the one of Go++. Are you sure it has a public GTP interface? Hi, Does someone know what the arguments of Go++ are to start it with gogui? --mode gtp and -gtp are not working. Ben ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
Question: how do MC programs perform with a long ladder on the board? My understandig of MC is limited but thinking about it, a crucial long ladder would automatically make the chances of any playout winning 50-50, regardless of the actual outcome of the ladder. If this is the case then: a) when winning it will avoid all ladders, even the ones working for it. b) when losing it will look for situations involving ladders, even when they're not working. Is this correct? Probably on 9x9 this is not a problem because all ladders will be relatively short. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
Mark Boon wrote: Question: how do MC programs perform with a long ladder on the board? Mogo makes the 20k mistake to push an intrusion of ladder shape into the own territory like tooth paste. I do not know if this is caused by reading ladder-like, by juding the adjacent life wrongly (in a nakade there are often more death than life sequences even if a simple vital point makes life), or by the short but wrong pattern database. The UCT programmers should tell us. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
Since Valkyria is slow anyway, I can have it read ladders in the simulations. The ladder code is really fast and a little buggy, but works often enough to not cause major problems. I never tested the benefits of the ladder code it just appeared to be much stronger. -Magnus Quoting Rémi Coulom [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Robert Jasiek wrote: Mark Boon wrote: Question: how do MC programs perform with a long ladder on the board? Crazy Stone handles ladder with progressive widening. Ladder atari is usually ranked first or very high in the move list, and ladder extension lower. So, the tree-search part usually does not read out the ladder completely, but prunes the extension. It seems to work well in practice. Because progressive widening will include the ladder extension at some point, Crazy Stone may still play ladder extensions if it finds reasons to do so. According to some discussions I had with Sylvain in Amsterdam, MoGo's approach is a little more primitive. If I remember correctly, it completely prunes ladder extensions. I am not sure if it is done only at the root, or inside the tree search too. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Magnus Persson Berlin, Germany ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
Rémi Coulom wrote: I don't understand what you mean by push an intrusion of ladder shape into the own territory like tooth paste. The game below is a 9 stone handicap game between me and Mogo. It is my second game against Mogo, after a 7x7 test to understand the GUI and a first even game (further below). I do not know how to set up free handicap placement yet, so the first few moves are a sort of emulation to encourage Mogo to accept a free handicap. Its handicap placement style is very similar to mine. (In fact, Mogo plays pretty similar to my style in the fuseki.) Mogo shows good attacking and some moves are high dan level (while others are double digit kyu level; these occur only as systematic exceptions as with tooth paste or, as others have pointed out, local deep tactical reading; obviously these are the places to embed UCT into a context of go knowledge). The UCT program fuseki is about 3 dan level. (You know, I am in a position to judge about the seemingly random style.) Bad tooth paste ladder pushing moves were: 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 131 Impressive moves: 73, 139, 159, 161 *** 9 stone game *** (;SZ[19]FF[4]AP[GOWrite:2.1.24]CA[UTF-8]GM[1]PW[ ]PB[MoGo]OT[10 moves / 2 min]KM[7.5]GN[ ]DT[2007-12-08]TM[1200.0]RE[B+3.5] ;BL[119.0]B[dd] ;W[tt]WL[118.0] ;BL[119.0]B[tt] ;W[jj]WL[94.0] ;BL[91.0]B[pp] ;W[od]WL[92.0] ;BL[91.0]B[dp] ;W[pi]WL[87.0] ;BL[73.0]B[nm] ;W[tt]WL[83.0] ;BL[57.0]B[fn] ;W[tt]WL[81.0] ;BL[39.0]B[hd] ;W[tt]WL[79.0] ;BL[24.0]B[jn] ;W[tt]WL[77.0] ;BL[8.0]B[fi] ;W[tt]WL[74.0] ;BL[-8.0]B[hk] ;W[tt]WL[63.0] ;BL[-18.0]B[mj] ;W[tt]WL[59.0] ;BL[-29.0]B[hh] ;W[tt]WL[56.0] ;BL[-40.0]B[jh] ;W[ci]WL[45.0] ;BL[-50.0]B[cn] ;W[jq]WL[43.0] ;BL[-57.0]B[iq] ;W[ir]WL[41.0] ;BL[-73.0]B[jr] ;W[kr]WL[36.0] ;BL[-83.0]B[jp] ;W[js]WL[24.0] ;BL[-101.0]B[lq] ;W[hq]WL[22.0] ;BL[-106.0]B[ip] ;W[kq]WL[20.0] ;BL[-116.0]B[lp] ;W[pm]WL[16.0] ;BL[-129.0]B[mf] ;W[lc]WL[4.0] ;BL[-138.0]B[mb] ;W[nc]WL[0.0] ;BL[-150.0]B[jd] ;W[bf]WL[-40.0] ;BL[-167.0]B[df] ;W[dc]WL[-47.0] ;BL[-172.0]B[ec] ;W[cc]WL[-50.0] ;BL[-184.0]B[cd] ;W[bd]WL[-51.0] ;BL[-197.0]B[be] ;W[bc]WL[-59.0] ;BL[-215.0]B[bl] ;W[cf]WL[-79.0] ;BL[-225.0]B[dg] ;W[ed]WL[-85.0] ;BL[-239.0]B[ee] ;W[eb]WL[-93.0] ;BL[-249.0]B[fc] ;W[ce]WL[-96.0] ;BL[-266.0]B[mc] ;W[md]WL[-99.0] ;BL[-278.0]B[ld] ;W[kd]WL[-112.0] ;BL[-283.0]B[le] ;W[lb]WL[-128.0] ;BL[-301.0]B[kc] ;W[kb]WL[-130.0] ;BL[-315.0]B[pn] ;W[qn]WL[-134.0] ;BL[-325.0]B[qm] ;W[ro]WL[-142.0] ;BL[-338.0]B[pl] ;W[rm]WL[-152.0] ;BL[-351.0]B[om] ;W[qk]WL[-155.0] ;BL[-366.0]B[ke] ;W[of]WL[-176.0] ;BL[-376.0]B[me] ;W[nd]WL[-179.0] ;BL[-386.0]B[jb] ;W[fd]WL[-192.0] ;BL[-400.0]B[nb] ;W[ob]WL[-194.0] ;BL[-418.0]B[fq] ;W[gr]WL[-208.0] ;BL[-435.0]B[la] ;W[na]WL[-214.0] ;BL[-445.0]B[ka] ;W[pf]WL[-241.0] ;BL[-455.0]B[fe] ;W[de]WL[-244.0] ;BL[-472.0]B[ch] ;W[bh]WL[-252.0] ;BL[-482.0]B[di] ;W[cj]WL[-254.0] ;BL[-499.0]B[ck] ;W[dj]WL[-257.0] ;BL[-511.0]B[ej] ;W[dk]WL[-258.0] ;BL[-523.0]B[dl] ;W[ek]WL[-260.0] ;BL[-542.0]B[fk] ;W[el]WL[-263.0] ;BL[-558.0]B[em] ;W[fl]WL[-269.0] ;BL[-570.0]B[gl] ;W[mh]WL[-284.0] ;BL[-584.0]B[nh] ;W[ng]WL[-288.0] ;BL[-603.0]B[bj] ;W[bi]WL[-318.0] ;BL[-619.0]B[mi] ;W[mg]WL[-348.0] ;BL[-637.0]B[ki] ;W[gj]WL[-378.0] ;BL[-650.0]B[gk] ;W[eh]WL[-391.0] ;BL[-665.0]B[ei] ;W[dh]WL[-403.0] ;BL[-677.0]B[cg] ;W[ef]WL[-437.0] ;BL[-683.0]B[eg] ;W[ge]WL[-441.0] ;BL[-694.0]B[ff] ;W[gd]WL[-442.0] ;BL[-711.0]B[bg] ;W[ag]WL[-444.0] ;BL[-730.0]B[gf] ;W[he]WL[-449.0] ;BL[-750.0]B[rp] ;W[qq]WL[-465.0] ;BL[-762.0]B[qo] ;W[rn]WL[-467.0] ;BL[-775.0]B[qp] ;W[rq]WL[-473.0] ;BL[-794.0]B[er] ;W[pq]WL[-497.0] ;BL[-805.0]B[oq] ;W[sp]WL[-501.0] ;BL[-822.0]B[hb] ;W[op]WL[-519.0] ;BL[-830.0]B[po] ;W[nq]WL[-523.0] ;BL[-848.0]B[np] ;W[or]WL[-525.0] ;BL[-867.0]B[no] ;W[dm]WL[-530.0] ;BL[-872.0]B[cl] ;W[fm]WL[-531.0] ;BL[-882.0]B[en] ;W[gm]WL[-533.0] ;BL[-892.0]B[hm] ;W[gn]WL[-537.0] ;BL[-910.0]B[gc] ;W[fo]WL[-550.0] ;BL[-920.0]B[go] ;W[hn]WL[-555.0] ;BL[-935.0]B[in] ;W[eo]WL[-566.0] ;BL[-940.0]B[dn] ;W[aj]WL[-580.0] ;BL[-959.0]B[pc] ;W[oc]WL[-592.0] ;BL[-976.0]B[hp] ;W[gq]WL[-604.0] ;BL[-991.0]B[fp] ;W[al]WL[-607.0] ;BL[-1006.0]B[bk] ;W[fh]WL[-636.0] ;BL[-1021.0]B[fj] ;W[fg]WL[-647.0] ;BL[-1026.0]B[ef] ;W[hf]WL[-651.0] ;BL[-1031.0]B[gg] ;W[hg]WL[-652.0] ;BL[-1036.0]B[gh] ;W[bm]WL[-654.0] ;BL[-1041.0]B[cm] ;W[ak]WL[-661.0] ;BL[-1057.0]B[bn] ;W[fb]WL[-721.0] ;BL[-1070.0]B[pk] ;W[pj]WL[-723.0] ;BL[116.0]OB[9]B[ni] ;W[oh]WL[-737.0] ;BL[97.0]OB[8]B[lr] ;W[fs]WL[-750.0] ;BL[80.0]OB[7]B[cr] ;W[es]WL[-757.0] ;BL[62.0]OB[6]B[am] ;W[ah]WL[-775.0] ;BL[44.0]OB[5]B[ds] ;W[fr]WL[-788.0] ;BL[24.0]OB[4]B[ql] ;W[rl]WL[-791.0] ;BL[11.0]OB[3]B[rk] ;W[qj]WL[-793.0] ;BL[-2.0]OB[2]B[lh] ;W[gb]WL[-806.0] ;BL[-26.0]OB[1]B[hc] ;W[eq]WL[-814.0] ;BL[120.0]OB[10]B[dr] ;W[gp]WL[-818.0] ;BL[114.0]OB[9]B[ep] ;W[ho]WL[-820.0] ;BL[100.0]OB[8]B[oj] ;W[kp]WL[-836.0] ;BL[90.0]OB[7]B[ko] ;W[io]WL[-843.0]
Re: [computer-go] A thought about Bot-server communications
Nick Wedd wrote: Sorry, but I can't take this seriously. If your board update routine fails, just fix it. As long as you trust the controller to send legal moves, it's well defined how the board will look. The same board update logic can be used for all rulesets. If you don't agree about the legality, complain in a logfile. If you don't trust the controller to send legal moves, you have a problem that is hardly properly solved by asking it for a different board state description. I agree that the server knows better than me about the legality. I trust the server to make legal moves. I just might not know how to update the board state after a move I had not realised was possible. In 1998, running the Ing Cup, I tested all the entrants for their behaviour when someone played a suicide move at them. Many Faces put up a polite dialog box explaining that this was an illegal move. Go++ was more amusing: it allowed the move (which you would approve) but left the suicided stones on the board, where they became almost unkillable, it could not capture them by removing their last liberty as they didn't have one, the only way to lose them was to capture exactly one of their surrounding stones, in a perverted kind of snapback. I would have preferred these programs to have been able to respond wtf is going on, please tell me the current board state. Well, the thing is that fixing the board update logic should in most cases be a matter of adding a small number of lines, or in extreme cases even removing some lines. In terms of programming it's a much bigger operation to obtain information by external communication and then trying to recover the internal data structures. /Gunnar ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
Ladders are not hard, especially if one is permitted to place stones on the (virtual) board to trace the flow. A 20 kyu human can follow the logic. Don, you describe some subtle choices of playing one's opponent, and compare them to MC programs, but you are a fairly strong chess player. If you were counseling a beginner, you'd surely urge him/her to focus on getting the basics right before getting fancy with estimations of winning probability vis a vis particular opponents. Go and chess differ in a fundamental way. With chess, many positions may be genuinely unknowable, beyond human/machine ability to measure the exact outcome; a probabilistic approach may be well suited to such situations. With Go, there are many situations which can be read out precisely, provided that one has the proper tools - ladders, the ability to distinguish between one and two eyes; the ability to reduce eyespaces to a single eye with an appropriate placement; and so forth. Failure to recognize such situations is like failing to spot a pinned piece or a passed pawn. Every now and then, I have the opportunity to play a pro, or watch a pro against other amateur players. Even 4 and 5 dan amateurs find their groups crumbling against pro players. But in many cases, the pro simply exploits weak shape - reducing groups to the one eyed state. Evaluating winning odds depends upon evaluating the final score at the leaf nodes, which depends on being able to distinguish between one and two eyes, to count liberties in capturing races, to recognize seki, to read ladders, and other basic skills. At some point in the game, an evaluation function should be able to quickly and accurately report oops, just lost ten or twenty points, with no compensating gain, therefore the score is -15; this node should be reported as a lost game, back up and try something different. The earlier one can make such accurate assessments, the better one's game. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] A thought about Bot-server communications
Perhaps servers should have test suites and regression tests for participants. These would enable bugs to be worked out before engaging in tournament play. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster - Original Message From: Gunnar Farnebäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:12:57 AM Subject: Re: [computer-go] A thought about Bot-server communications Nick Wedd wrote: Sorry, but I can't take this seriously. If your board update routine fails, just fix it. As long as you trust the controller to send legal moves, it's well defined how the board will look. The same board update logic can be used for all rulesets. If you don't agree about the legality, complain in a logfile. If you don't trust the controller to send legal moves, you have a problem that is hardly properly solved by asking it for a different board state description. I agree that the server knows better than me about the legality. I trust the server to make legal moves. I just might not know how to update the board state after a move I had not realised was possible. In 1998, running the Ing Cup, I tested all the entrants for their behaviour when someone played a suicide move at them. Many Faces put up a polite dialog box explaining that this was an illegal move. Go++ was more amusing: it allowed the move (which you would approve) but left the suicided stones on the board, where they became almost unkillable, it could not capture them by removing their last liberty as they didn't have one, the only way to lose them was to capture exactly one of their surrounding stones, in a perverted kind of snapback. I would have preferred these programs to have been able to respond wtf is going on, please tell me the current board state. Well, the thing is that fixing the board update logic should in most cases be a matter of adding a small number of lines, or in extreme cases even removing some lines. In terms of programming it's a much bigger operation to obtain information by external communication and then trying to recover the internal data structures. /Gunnar ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
Raymond Wold wrote: On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 11:42 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: In fact, this illustrates a wonderful strength of these programs. Only it's not strength to ignore a move to your benefit, Who suggested that it was? The strength of MC programs is how they deal with uncertainty, not the fact that there is uncertainty. So what method do you propose that is immune to uncertainty? when it's something a 20 kyu human can read out. Nor is it strength when you play out a dead ladder, no matter if you're behind. Do you know of an approach that evaluates go positions perfectly?You are attacking the fact that MC programs have errors in their probability estimates but completely ignoring the fact that SO DOES EVERY OTHER EVALUATION FUNCTION. Currently there is no evidence whatsoever that probability estimates are inferior and they are the ones playing the best GO right now, so the burden of proof is on you. It's not enough to simply find games where they played a bad move, unless you can show that other approaches are not as subject to bad moves. - Don Pure MC will /not/ cure cancer. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
terry mcintyre wrote: Ladders are not hard, especially if one is permitted to place stones on the (virtual) board to trace the flow. A 20 kyu human can follow the logic. Don, you describe some subtle choices of playing one's opponent, and compare them to MC programs, but you are a fairly strong chess player. If you were counseling a beginner, you'd surely urge him/her to focus on getting the basics right before getting fancy with estimations of winning probability vis a vis particular opponents. For beginners I would strongly council to play the board, not the opponent. At the top level it's not really like this.You must play soundly but there is a huge element of playing the opponent. The most basic winning technique is to constantly present problems to your opponent - even though this may have little to do with the game theoretic score. Part of the reason for this is that if you do it to him, he is too busy to hurt you.But the real point is that you want to provoke an error. If you don't play this way at the higher level most games would end in a draw.2700 players do not want to draw 2500 players too much so must play provocatively. Top level players tend to draw each other a lot unless the results are very important - and even then it's difficult to get out of a draw. Here is some advice for playing against stronger players: Don't change your game. Play the same way you normally would.If you like tactics, don't be afraid to mix it up. It's not that this is likely to give you a win, but it's certainly not going the help you to change your style. When your opponent is in time pressure, naive players start playing really fast in order to add to their opponents time pressure.This is a really stupid mistake. You are giving away your only advantage, the fact that you have more time than your opponent. Duhhh! In fact, there might even be some benefit to playing a little slower than usual. In time pressure your opponent has the advantage of the adrenalin in his system and it actually helps him.But you cannot maintain an adrenalin rush for too long without it washing you out. So if he has 1 minute on his clock, you can keep his adrenalin going for 20 minutes he will be exhausted before long. Many mistakes are made immediately after time-control has been reach and the player thinks he is safe. All of these things are attempts to play the opponent and it usually turns out that this is foolish. You are upsetting and distracting yourself from the game when you do this and only if you really know what you are doing should playing the opponent be attempted. Go and chess differ in a fundamental way. With chess, many positions may be genuinely unknowable, beyond human/machine ability to measure the exact outcome; a probabilistic approach may be well suited to such situations. With Go, there are many situations which can be read out precisely, provided that one has the proper tools - ladders, the ability to distinguish between one and two eyes; the ability to reduce eyespaces to a single eye with an appropriate placement; and so forth. Failure to recognize such situations is like failing to spot a pinned piece or a passed pawn. But so far, the evidence says the probabilistic approach works in GO and so far nobody has demonstrated a strong chess program that uses this approach. However I don't know if anyone has seriously tried in chess. Every now and then, I have the opportunity to play a pro, or watch a pro against other amateur players. Even 4 and 5 dan amateurs find their groups crumbling against pro players. But in many cases, the pro simply exploits weak shape - reducing groups to the one eyed state. Evaluating winning odds depends upon evaluating the final score at the leaf nodes, which depends on being able to distinguish between one and two eyes, to count liberties in capturing races, to recognize seki, to read ladders, and other basic skills. At some point in the game, an evaluation function should be able to quickly and accurately report oops, just lost ten or twenty points, with no compensating gain, therefore the score is -15; this node should be reported as a lost game, back up and try something different. The earlier one can make such accurate assessments, the better one's game. I am a lousy go player, but I started out counting stones, trying to win everything. I think I definitely made a step forward when I started mentally mapping out the board. I actually learned this from my own monte carlo program. I try to figure out exactly what I need to win and then I focus on that.That doesn't mean you are not flexible and opportunistic - if I have a chance to grab a piece I didn't expect, it's that much less I have to worry about elsewhere.Then at some point I consolidate, making sure if I'm winning I don't attempt any foolish excursions.Instead I strengthen what I have a
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
At this point, it has to be said that _all_ computer go programs suck at 19xc19 go. MC programs happen to suck less, especially on small boards. On the other hand, we do have some very strong special-purpose go programs. There are several very strong tsumego/life-and-death programs and at least one endgame program. There are some fairly strong fuseki predictors. I'm hoping the goal is to develop programs strong enough to play a credible game against dan-level humans on a 19x19 board. If we ever figure out how to merge the great strengths of UCT/MC with these other strengths, we'd be a good bit closer. If a program is able able to learn from examples and experience. I'd feed it a library of go problems, and keep training until the right line of play, and the refutations of bad play, are quickly and reliably found for hundreds or thousands of games. Often, there is one right line of play, and very many bad lines. Hugh GrantImportant to know the difference. /Hugh Grant Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around 2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated player (better more) to get the scale. If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email at ccbirk at gmail dot com. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
Hi Petri, I happen to think that MC is the most human like approach currently being tried. The reason I say that is that humans DO estimate their winning chances and tally methods, where you simply tally up features/weights (regardless of how sophisticated) is not how strong humans think about the game. Also, the best first global game tree approach, whatever you call it such as UCT and others, is a very close model of how humans play the game too.We may notice 3 moves that look playable, but gradually come to focus on just 2 of those. Essentially monte carlo does this too.Very narrow focused trees. The play-out portion is a crude approximation for imagination. We basically look at a board and imagine the final position.The MC play-outs kill the dead groups in a reasonably accurate (but fuzzy) way and put the flesh on the skeleton. Near the end of the game, the play-outs end mostly the same the way the game itself would end - and the same way a human would expect it to look like. I attribute the success of MC to the fact that it's the best simulation of how WE do it.The other approaches are clearly more synthetic, including raw MC without a proper tree. - Don Petri Pitkanen wrote: 2007/12/11, terry mcintyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]: With Go, there are many situations which can be read out precisely, provided that one has the proper tools - ladders, the ability to distinguish between one and two eyes; the ability to reduce eyespaces to a single eye with an appropriate placement; and so forth. Failure to recognize such situations is like failing to spot a pinned piece or a passed pawn. I am no fan on MC approach but basically MC can read LD given enough of simulations. It will read them without knowing that they need to be analysed. Point in MC being that once you get more power you get better LD as well, but without extra coding. This approach will result in non-human like game BUT likewise chess programs did not get strong by emulating humans. They just took one simple thing humans do and took it to extreme. Whatever approach will do the trick in go it will be similar in this sense. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Are you playing on CGOS? Did you actually build your own GUI for this? I don't want people playing on CGOS as a general rule except under controlled circumstance for this purpose, but not just for fun. I discovered that it's easy to use gtpadapter from gogui and play on CGOS. The only problem is that you have to be very careful to avoid illegal moves such as KO and suicide. Probably a good player would rarely do this but I played 2 or 3 games (not taking them seriously) and forfeited due to playing quickly without checking around. - Don Christoph Birk wrote: It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around 2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated player (better more) to get the scale. If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email at ccbirk at gmail dot com. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
2007/12/11, terry mcintyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]: With Go, there are many situations which can be read out precisely, provided that one has the proper tools - ladders, the ability to distinguish between one and two eyes; the ability to reduce eyespaces to a single eye with an appropriate placement; and so forth. Failure to recognize such situations is like failing to spot a pinned piece or a passed pawn. I am no fan on MC approach but basically MC can read LD given enough of simulations. It will read them without knowing that they need to be analysed. Point in MC being that once you get more power you get better LD as well, but without extra coding. This approach will result in non-human like game BUT likewise chess programs did not get strong by emulating humans. They just took one simple thing humans do and took it to extreme. Whatever approach will do the trick in go it will be similar in this sense. -- Petri Pitkänen e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Are you playing on CGOS? Did you actually build your own GUI for this? As I wrote in a previous email, I re-used my 'myCtest' program but replaced the 'genmove' command with a simple GUI. Just took me a few hours. I don't want people playing on CGOS as a general rule except under controlled circumstance for this purpose, but not just for fun. Don't worry, I don't plan to play for fun on CGOS. I just wanted to establish a conversion from ELO rating to 'human rank'. Now we need 1 or 2 stronger players to get the scale. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
Make sure that you use the -19 argument when starting 19x19 Mogo, and restart GoGui (in order to restart Mogo indirectly) after you change the settings. Somewhat confusingly, Mogo does not automatically play 19x19 style just because it receives a request for 19x19 board. Poor ladder handling and squeezing the toothpaste are both behaviors that Mogo can exhibit when playing 9x9-style on the 19x19 board. If, assuming you're in GoGui, the GTP shell window shows shishoCheck is called comments, then you're really playing 19x19 style. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 13:45 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: Do you know of an approach that evaluates go positions perfectly?You are attacking the fact that MC programs have errors in their probability estimates but completely ignoring the fact that SO DOES EVERY OTHER EVALUATION FUNCTION. I can code an algorithm that evaluates simple ladders correctly. I'll repeat that. I can code a program that reads ladders better than a pure MC program without knowledge of ladders. I can beat it. Human knowledge programmed into a computer that does that one thing, that basic go skill, better than the MC program. Are you saying that there is absolutely no way to combine such with an MC program to make it better? Not just that no one has done it (I don't know if anyone has) but that it is impossible? Are you saying that attempts to do so are wasted? If you are, I'd appreciate it if you did so clearly. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
2007/12/12, Raymond Wold [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Are you saying that there is absolutely no way to combine such with an MC program to make it better? Not just that no one has done it (I don't know if anyone has) but that it is impossible? Are you saying that attempts to do so are wasted? If you are, I'd appreciate it if you did so clearly. As already stated, Valkyria, a strong MC/UCT program, is known to read ladders in simulation. -- Seo Sanghyeon ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
Since Valkyria is slow anyway, I can have it read ladders in the simulations. The ladder code is really fast and a little buggy, but works often enough to not cause major problems. I never tested the benefits of the ladder code it just appeared to be much stronger. -Magnus What do you do with the knowledge learned by reading out the ladder in a simulation? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
Raymond, Playing a strong game of go is a combination of many factors, not just reading ladders.You could probably isolate out any particular skill and write some code that does it pretty well. But the question will always be: How well does it actually play the game? As has been stated here many times, improving some specific skill could actually hurt the overall strength.What you want is the best program overall - one that knows how to win games. I don't care if you can make a great ladder reader if the program sucks. Raymond Wold wrote: On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 13:45 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: Do you know of an approach that evaluates go positions perfectly?You are attacking the fact that MC programs have errors in their probability estimates but completely ignoring the fact that SO DOES EVERY OTHER EVALUATION FUNCTION. I can code an algorithm that evaluates simple ladders correctly. I'll repeat that. I can code a program that reads ladders better than a pure MC program without knowledge of ladders. I can beat it. Human knowledge programmed into a computer that does that one thing, that basic go skill, better than the MC program. Are you saying that there is absolutely no way to combine such with an MC program to make it better? Not just that no one has done it (I don't know if anyone has) but that it is impossible? Are you saying that attempts to do so are wasted? If you are, I'd appreciate it if you did so clearly. This is the course MC programs have been taking all along, adding domain specific (and otherwise) knowledge to the play-outs.Of course you can add ladder code. But what does this have to do with anything? What we are arguing about is whether it's good to try to estimate probabilities. That's what you have been critical of. Adding ladder code will improve any evaluation function if done correctly but that's not relevant if you believe estimating probability is foolish. To the contrary, I believe it is brilliant - in my opinion it is a key factor in the success of these programs and I would call it a key breakthrough. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
I have had this experience many times: 1. You see a move that sucks. 2. You identify the problem and engineer a solution. 3. The solution indeed works - it cures the problem. 4. The program plays worse than it did before. By the way, you are being modest, Antigo is not bad on 9x9.It's true there is a pack of programs that are way out front, but they are mostly different version of just 3 or 4 programs. Your program would be the top program if it was on the server 2 years ago. Do you remember when CGOS started?It was an impressive feat to break 1800 back then. - Don [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My engine, Antigo, is not one of the strongest and only plays 9x9 games. It does not read ladders correctly unless they are short enough for the tree to handle it. But I could uncomment a few lines of code and then the playouts would know how to handle simple ladders for external nodes. The rules in the heavy playouts can be tuned so that both colors will play out any ladder. Or each color can read ahead, during the playout, to decide whether or not to continue a ladder-like Valkyria does. In my experience, both ways produce a net decrease in playing strength for my particular bot. Adjusting the heavy playout rules to deal with particular tactical issues leads to a lot of unintended consequences. I've also tried doing a tactical analysis for each string (coincidentally also using MC/UCT) as a first pass at the root node and using information from that to inform the playouts. It almost helps... it ought to help... if I tried one more thing... I'd be happy to accept that any sort of traditional go information *might* improve MC/UCT. But until it gets down to specifics, there's not much to argue about. - Dave Hillis More new features than ever. Check out the new AIM(R) Mail http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aimcmp000501! ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Christoph, Let me know when you are finished, what name you are playing under and I will do the bayeselo thing to get a better figure. Also, I can throw out any games that were irregular if you can identify them, such as if a match started when you were not looking or your interface got glitchy or something. - Don Christoph Birk wrote: It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around 2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated player (better more) to get the scale. If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email at ccbirk at gmail dot com. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I think AGA and KGS are pretty close. AGA is a real rating system in that ratings are earned in sanctioned tournaments so they are not disrupted by casual games. http://www.usgo.org/ratings/default.html European ratings (also from tournaments) are perhaps 2 stones tougher. Many think they are more reasonable, since most feel the top of the amateur rating should be 7 dan or lower, and top AGA ratings are higher than that. Top pros that have participated in AGA tournaments have ratings about 10 dan, and there are many amateur 8 dans. Japanese ratings are less tough. Japanese amateur ratings can be purchased, with a test, so there has been inflation, and I don't think there is a national rating organization like in USA and Europe. Korean and Chinese are very tough, since they think a 1 dan amateur should be close to professional strength. So, I'm AGA 3 dan, but I would have a tough time playing as a 1 dan in Europe, and I play at 4 dan in clubs in Japan. I tried playing in a club as 3 dan in China once, and got totally crushed. My preference would be a scale that is fixed at the top, with 9 dan pros at 9 dan. This would put 1 dan pros at about 7 dan and top amateurs at 6 dan, with a few 7 dans. This is pretty close to the European scale. Top tournament pros almost never lose to pro 1 dans, so there are 300 or more ELO points between the top amateurs and the top professionals. So perhaps top human play is 3500 or more on the cgos 19x19 scale. That's 12 ranks above 2000, with the higher ranks having more ELO points per rank. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:37 PM To: computer-go Subject: Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs? I feel that we probably need several more players to have much accuracy, but I don't mind starting the best educated guess we can muster - it can be modified at a later time. How do AGA ratings compare to other systems? Is any particular system considered (defacto or otherwise) more of a standard than some other? How do AGA ratings compare to KGS? - Don Christoph Birk wrote: It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around 2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated player (better more) to get the scale. If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email at ccbirk at gmail dot com. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I have lurked here for a long time, I find this newsletter very interesting, because I play Go, I am not a programmer. I agree with everything Mr Foltand had to say, but would like to add a small bit about IGS ranks. A few years ago, IGS changed its ranking system so as to anchor from the top, ie a 9d on IGS was a 9d pro, making it the closest to real world rankings. I think the strength of IGS ranks has slipped a bit since cyberoro came online, but is still probably closest to real world ranks. I would suggest not using AGA or KGS or any other ranking system for establishing your CGOS ranks, recruit some IGS players with solid (over 100 rated games) ranks, and have them play with your various engines. back to lurking, Michael David Fotland wrote: I think AGA and KGS are pretty close. AGA is a real rating system in that ratings are earned in sanctioned tournaments so they are not disrupted by casual games. http://www.usgo.org/ratings/default.html European ratings (also from tournaments) are perhaps 2 stones tougher. Many think they are more reasonable, since most feel the top of the amateur rating should be 7 dan or lower, and top AGA ratings are higher than that. Top pros that have participated in AGA tournaments have ratings about 10 dan, and there are many amateur 8 dans. Japanese ratings are less tough. Japanese amateur ratings can be purchased, with a test, so there has been inflation, and I don't think there is a national rating organization like in USA and Europe. Korean and Chinese are very tough, since they think a 1 dan amateur should be close to professional strength. So, I'm AGA 3 dan, but I would have a tough time playing as a 1 dan in Europe, and I play at 4 dan in clubs in Japan. I tried playing in a club as 3 dan in China once, and got totally crushed. My preference would be a scale that is fixed at the top, with 9 dan pros at 9 dan. This would put 1 dan pros at about 7 dan and top amateurs at 6 dan, with a few 7 dans. This is pretty close to the European scale. Top tournament pros almost never lose to pro 1 dans, so there are 300 or more ELO points between the top amateurs and the top professionals. So perhaps top human play is 3500 or more on the cgos 19x19 scale. That's 12 ranks above 2000, with the higher ranks having more ELO points per rank. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:37 PM To: computer-go Subject: Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs? I feel that we probably need several more players to have much accuracy, but I don't mind starting the best educated guess we can muster - it can be modified at a later time. How do AGA ratings compare to other systems? Is any particular system considered (defacto or otherwise) more of a standard than some other? How do AGA ratings compare to KGS? - Don Christoph Birk wrote: It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around 2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated player (better more) to get the scale. If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email at ccbirk at gmail dot com. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Slugo Games at the Cotsen Tournament
SlugGo crashed twice, lost by 72 in an even game to a 6 Dan, and won 1 and lost 1 to 10 kyu players. My estimate is that it was behind in both games in which it crashed. Cheers, David On 11, Dec 2007, at 11:41 AM, Mark Schreiber wrote: What happened in the Slugo games at the Cotsen tournament? Mark On Tue Nov 27 09:11:07 PST 2007, David Doshay wrote: Once again, SlugGo was the only computer program at the Cotsen Open. It would be nice if someone else would bring a program next year. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
On Dec 11, 2007 8:53 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The play-out portion is a crude approximation for imagination. We basically look at a board and imagine the final position.The MC play-outs kill the dead groups in a reasonably accurate (but fuzzy) way and put the flesh on the skeleton. Near the end of the game, the play-outs end mostly the same the way the game itself would end - and the same way a human would expect it to look like. This seems pretty fishy to me, given that MC can't read ladders accurately, for instance, but any competent human can, and that MC plays so bizarrely differently from humans in many positions, especially endgames. There may be strong theoretical arguments why MC is STRONG, and there are clearly empirical demonstrations that MC IS strong, but it is not at all clear that MC is somehow simulating/approximating the mental process of a human player playing the game. If it were, I would expect an MC player to make moves that look a lot more human. I attribute the success of MC to the fact that it's the best simulation of how WE do it.The other approaches are clearly more synthetic, including raw MC without a proper tree. But those synthetic approaches seem MORE like what many human players do (at least humans I've talked to), thinking discretely about different domain-specific concrete things like are there any appropriate josekis for this situation?, can I kill that group? what is its final internal eye shape going to look like?, are any of my groups endangered?, is my opponent's moyo invadable? or reducible?, does this ladder work?, can these 2 groups be separated?, can I make these stones live? can I do it in sente?, who has more ko threats now?, how big is that ko threat compared to the value of this ko?, where is the biggest endgame move right now?, where is the biggest sente endgame move right now?, which of these monkey jumps is bigger?, etc. At a literal detailed analysis level, MC is totally different from how we do it. I know of no human player who imagines the 2 players randomly dropping stones over and over to see what proportion of wins/losses results. The basic philosophy of MC is radically different from how humans think about the game. (Which is not to say that MC is a bad approach of course.) And at a higher level (in terms of the actual moves that actually get chosen by MC), they also look very bizarre compared to a human player, particularly in the end game where (as has been discussed a lot recently) a winning MC often fills its own territory or plays neutral points when real points still exist, something a better-than-beginner (to say nothing of strong) human player would never do. In the opening, strong humans typically are familiar with many joseki, which MC is much less likely to randomly follow. And (to mention the actual subject of this thread...) a competent human player can read out most ladders correctly with certainty, unlike MC. and so on... cheers, russ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How does MC do with ladders?
2007/12/11, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Petri, I happen to think that MC is the most human like approach currently being tried Ye in sense Alpha-Beta is human like. It one feature we do and takes it to extreme. And using different method of evaluation. . The reason I say that is that humans DO estimate their winning chances and tally methods, where you simply tally up features/weights (regardless of how sophisticated) is not how strong humans think about the game. Tallying up ius the non-human part. Extracting features and assigning meaning to them is very human. Good go player describe moves they make with terms like thicknes, wall, spere of influence,invasion. Obviously these are not needed if one searches deep enough but how deep that would be? game too.We may notice 3 moves that look playable, but gradually come to focus on just 2 of those. Essentially monte carlo does this too.Very narrow focused trees. Here we completely agree. It just picks the moves with different emphasis. And we do tactical analysis all the time. Something MC program is pretty weak at. I for instance played MOGO and it refused to resign until I places a dead group in atari. Any 20 would have seen that specific situation. Still that same 20 would have lost the game easily. So this is very unlike humans I attribute the success of MC to the fact that it's the best simulation of how WE do it.The other approaches are clearly more synthetic, including raw MC without a proper tree. It could be the best but it is not very close. And adding more go knowledge to it may make it weaker by consuming CPU. There must be a third way. But this is the best idea that has posppoed up in years - or more like a decade - Don Petri ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
