Re: [Computer-go] I would like people to play with correct handicap to get a more reliable rating

[David Fotland]

I don’t share or take code from other programs because Many Faces of Go is 
commercial.  Many other programs have licenses that are not compatible with 
commercial use, so I'm careful not to even look at their source code.  We share 
ideas all the time, through publications, informal conversations at 
tournaments, and this forum.

Because our core data structures are different, or we use different languages, 
sharing code is typically not going to be practical.  

David

> -Original Message-
> From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf
> Of djhbrown .
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:37 PM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [Computer-go] I would like people to play with correct
> handicap to get a more reliable rating
> 
> .
> whereas the majority of teenage kgsers i encounter suffer from hyperhubris
> amongst a plethora of other sociopathological handicaps, mathematically,
> it ought not to matter a whit to a bot's own self-esteem when the witless
> up themselves against it because the kgs ranking algorithm surely ought to
> either take rank aberrations into account or ignore delusionally-
> handicapped-game results because they don't just do it against you, they
> do it against everybody.
> 
> but in any case, how reliable is poking a stick around in the dark anyway?
> 
> PS  Whereas it is true that a camel is a horse that was designed by a
> committee, why on earth don't you guys stop trying to get one over each
> other in the kgs playground and start working as a team?  For example,
> DCNNigo plays a very respectable opening but falls apart in the yose, so a
> different technique is required for that phase of the game.  If you put
> your heads together, you might come up with a multibot that arguably could
> be considered smart instead of just lucky.  You should be able to hook up
> across internet so the many heads don't all have to be in the same room.
> Yonks ago Oliver Selfridge [1] proposed just such an architecture for an
> intracranial artificial intelligence - but you could go intercranial.  Now
> that would be an IT worth checking out.
> [1] http://sites.sinauer.com/wolfe4e/wa04.02.html
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Computer-go Digest, Vol 69, Issue 2

[djhbrown .]

.
"sharing code is typically not going to be practical."

that's not what i suggested.  perhaps someone else can explain the concept
of message-passing distributed architecture better than me
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Computer-go Digest, Vol 69, Issue 2

[Jim O'Flaherty]

You mean literally the slowest of all the constraints in all of software
engineering (excluding waiting on UI input) in a domain that cannot
currently get enough unconstrained CPU and memory cycles?

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:53 AM, djhbrown .  wrote:

> .
> "sharing code is typically not going to be practical."
>
> that's not what i suggested.  perhaps someone else can explain the concept
> of message-passing distributed architecture better than me
>
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Computer-go Digest, Vol 69, Issue 2

[David Doshay]

SlugGo used message passing in a distributed architecture and started as a 
shell over the top of multiple instantiations of GNU Go in order to evaluate a 
look-ahead tree that GNU Go did not build. It was one of the strongest programs 
before the MCTS programs hit their stride. Now it would not be competitive: 
It’s peak performance was to beat a human 8k at the Cotsen Open when other 
programs were playing near 12k.

Much like you are suggesting with HALy, SlugGo was an attempt to integrate 
different ways to compute the moves, including an expert system based upon the 
concepts used by my Go teacher (Lance Kemper, 5D), but we did not get the 
arbitration of moves suggested by different ‘brains’ to be successfully 
evaluated (although somebody else might be able to). At some point we found 
that we had a stronger engine just doing MCTS instead of all the other 
computation.

I think that your premise that there is not much sharing in computer Go is 
wrong. The exchange of ideas and data on this forum far exceeds what takes 
place in many other computer games. The rapid spread of the MCTS technique, the 
way that RAVE, AMAF, and other methods were developed in a very open way, and 
the recent integration of the DCNN data into other engines displays to me that 
Go programmers have found a healthy balance between competition and cooperation 
… or maybe I should say exploration / exploitation.


Cheers,
David G Doshay

ddos...@mac.com





> On 2, Oct 2015, at 6:53 AM, djhbrown .  wrote:
> 
> .
> "sharing code is typically not going to be practical."
> 
> that's not what i suggested.  perhaps someone else can explain the concept of 
> message-passing distributed architecture better than me
> 
> 
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Computer-go Digest, Vol 69, Issue 2

[Petri Pitkanen]

I think very few people here do not know message passing style of
programming.  I just not suited problem at hand. Not very cPU efficient.
This is high speed simulation anyways



2015-10-02 16:53 GMT+03:00 djhbrown . :

> .
> "sharing code is typically not going to be practical."
>
> that's not what i suggested.  perhaps someone else can explain the concept
> of message-passing distributed architecture better than me
>
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Computer-go Digest, Vol 69, Issue 2

[Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira]

I actually agree some form of more de facto cooperation could exist. 
Message passing is already used in clusters anyways, some hierarchical 
architecture for Go with different providers could be implemented. There 
are two immediate problems however:


1. Brown said there are some programs that are much better at some tasks 
than others, but I'm not so sure about this and how much stronger would 
be a joint effort to compensate the increase in complexity/comm. 
overhead/etc.
2. To have a joint effort there would have to be a strong financial 
force to pull everyone into the same time table, licensing model, and so 
on. Currently research on computer Go seems to be supported by either 
commercial endeavors or academic research. Even if this did produce a 
stronger player, without a financial force most people would prefer to 
do things their own way, instead of adhering to the Go juggernaut. It 
would become an effort of just a few "computer Go experts".


The more I think about it the more the word "MoGo" comes to mind.

Gonçalo F.

On 02/10/2015 19:26, Petri Pitkanen wrote:

I think very few people here do not know message passing style of
programming.  I just not suited problem at hand. Not very cPU efficient.
This is high speed simulation anyways



2015-10-02 16:53 GMT+03:00 djhbrown . :


.
"sharing code is typically not going to be practical."

that's not what i suggested.  perhaps someone else can explain the concept
of message-passing distributed architecture better than me


___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Computer-go Digest, Vol 69, Issue 2

[David Doshay]

The messages need not be used on a single CPU; in SlugGo MPI was our way to 
start jobs on remote nodes. The time to wrap and unwrap the messages was not 
significant compared to the time used to calculate a suggested move.

Cheers,
David G Doshay

ddos...@mac.com





> On 2, Oct 2015, at 11:26 AM, Petri Pitkanen  
> wrote:
> 
> I think very few people here do not know message passing style of 
> programming.  I just not suited problem at hand. Not very cPU efficient. This 
> is high speed simulation anyways
> 
> 
> 
> 2015-10-02 16:53 GMT+03:00 djhbrown .  >:
> .
> "sharing code is typically not going to be practical."
> 
> that's not what i suggested.  perhaps someone else can explain the concept of 
> message-passing distributed architecture better than me
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org 
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go 
> 
> 
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

[Computer-go] modus operandi

[djhbrown .]

"To have a joint effort there would have to be a strong financial force to
pull everyone into the same time table, licensing model, and so on".

Money does make the world go around. Anthropologists and sociologists and
investigative journalists have revealed that throughout the history of
mankind,  the profit motive of unscrupulous goldfingers has exacerbated the
scale of conflicts, turning what had evolved within the human genome as
mate-competition aggression into broadscale rabid genocidal megalomania.
However, there is another side to the human psyche's motivation apparatus,
namely that of socialisation.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and although it was, like the pyramids, largely
built with slave and/or indentured labour, it was built by more than one
egocentric old man determined to prove to himself that he is better than
his Dad, or better than he thought his Dad thought he was.

There are examples of non-profit collaborations such as Gnu, Creative
Commons, and the Open CourseWare initiative.  Although the latter is mainly
a marketing channel, it also distributes information freely; one of very
few examples of the trickle-down effect actually happening.

So no, there doesn't have to be a strong financial force, merely a strong
sociality one, or at least a recognition that many hands make light work
and a willingness the share the glory.

MCTS seems to be very good at small-scale fighting, whereas CNN might be
better-suited to fuseki.  I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that 19x19
is 4 times 9x9, but borders of teacups overlap, so a flitting-around fovea
is needed rather than a stationary one, and that requires a CEO to tell it
where to flit.  Or, rather, to tell them where to flit, if there were an
internetworked army of foveas, each doing his own local reconnaisance and
reporting back to HQ.

That CEO, like all CEOs, can make the big decisions, but having a head no
smarter than a toilet-cleaner's or rice-paddy plougher's, it can only do so
much, so it needs to be supported by a cabinet of consultants, each of whom
has its own set of information filters and labour force, to offer the CEO a
small set (7 plus or minus 2) of simple choices.  In the real world, the
Sir Humphreys always ensure that their Minister makes the choice they want
him to make, but in the mind of a machine, rational objective globally
beneficial decisions are theoretically possible.

This message is only for those who haven't lost the idealism of youth, as
old dogs don't like new tricks and more often than not would would rather
shoot the messenger than contemplate the message.  It might happen in
academia, if ITers ever learn to follow the example of their medical
colleagues, whose lists of authors are usually longer than the substantive
content of their papers.

How could it happen?  Don't ask me - i'm a Steppenwolf.  Besides, i am far
too busy with much more important things like smelling roses, so i don't
have the time.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] modus operandi

[Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira]

Maybe someone in need of ideas for MSc/PhDs, or a taste for social 
activism will pick up that idea.


Yes, you, if you're reading this, you can become the next Stallman.

Just imagine the amount of resources (read: money) that would pour in if 
people were convinced of a Russia+China vs The World war by proxy 
competition on computer Go.


On 03/10/2015 00:00, djhbrown . wrote:

"To have a joint effort there would have to be a strong financial force to
pull everyone into the same time table, licensing model, and so on".

Money does make the world go around. Anthropologists and sociologists and
investigative journalists have revealed that throughout the history of
mankind,  the profit motive of unscrupulous goldfingers has exacerbated the
scale of conflicts, turning what had evolved within the human genome as
mate-competition aggression into broadscale rabid genocidal megalomania.
However, there is another side to the human psyche's motivation apparatus,
namely that of socialisation.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and although it was, like the pyramids, largely
built with slave and/or indentured labour, it was built by more than one
egocentric old man determined to prove to himself that he is better than
his Dad, or better than he thought his Dad thought he was.

There are examples of non-profit collaborations such as Gnu, Creative
Commons, and the Open CourseWare initiative.  Although the latter is mainly
a marketing channel, it also distributes information freely; one of very
few examples of the trickle-down effect actually happening.

So no, there doesn't have to be a strong financial force, merely a strong
sociality one, or at least a recognition that many hands make light work
and a willingness the share the glory.

MCTS seems to be very good at small-scale fighting, whereas CNN might be
better-suited to fuseki.  I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that 19x19
is 4 times 9x9, but borders of teacups overlap, so a flitting-around fovea
is needed rather than a stationary one, and that requires a CEO to tell it
where to flit.  Or, rather, to tell them where to flit, if there were an
internetworked army of foveas, each doing his own local reconnaisance and
reporting back to HQ.

That CEO, like all CEOs, can make the big decisions, but having a head no
smarter than a toilet-cleaner's or rice-paddy plougher's, it can only do so
much, so it needs to be supported by a cabinet of consultants, each of whom
has its own set of information filters and labour force, to offer the CEO a
small set (7 plus or minus 2) of simple choices.  In the real world, the
Sir Humphreys always ensure that their Minister makes the choice they want
him to make, but in the mind of a machine, rational objective globally
beneficial decisions are theoretically possible.

This message is only for those who haven't lost the idealism of youth, as
old dogs don't like new tricks and more often than not would would rather
shoot the messenger than contemplate the message.  It might happen in
academia, if ITers ever learn to follow the example of their medical
colleagues, whose lists of authors are usually longer than the substantive
content of their papers.

How could it happen?  Don't ask me - i'm a Steppenwolf.  Besides, i am far
too busy with much more important things like smelling roses, so i don't
have the time.


___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] modus operandi

[甲斐徳本]

When and how is this Goggernaut starting?

In order for Petr Baudis' students in Prague and the UEC gang in Tokyo to
be involved, I'd think communications issue needs to be high on the
priorities.

And that is something I am willing to curtail my rose smelling activities
and help. Do any of you Computer Science MSc/PhD candidates have friends in
Social Sciences who might be interested and contribute in coming up with
modus operandi guidelines for the best probability of success in the world
today?  This could be a joint Social Science / Computer Science project.

I wish I knew many Deans and department heads of universities in the world
to discuss this idea.  But I'm just an old dog who plans on participating
in his first CGF Open tomorrow.

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:00 AM, djhbrown .  wrote:

> "To have a joint effort there would have to be a strong financial force to
> pull everyone into the same time table, licensing model, and so on".
>
> Money does make the world go around. Anthropologists and sociologists and
> investigative journalists have revealed that throughout the history of
> mankind,  the profit motive of unscrupulous goldfingers has exacerbated the
> scale of conflicts, turning what had evolved within the human genome as
> mate-competition aggression into broadscale rabid genocidal megalomania.
> However, there is another side to the human psyche's motivation apparatus,
> namely that of socialisation.
>
> Rome wasn't built in a day, and although it was, like the pyramids,
> largely built with slave and/or indentured labour, it was built by more
> than one egocentric old man determined to prove to himself that he is
> better than his Dad, or better than he thought his Dad thought he was.
>
> There are examples of non-profit collaborations such as Gnu, Creative
> Commons, and the Open CourseWare initiative.  Although the latter is mainly
> a marketing channel, it also distributes information freely; one of very
> few examples of the trickle-down effect actually happening.
>
> So no, there doesn't have to be a strong financial force, merely a strong
> sociality one, or at least a recognition that many hands make light work
> and a willingness the share the glory.
>
> MCTS seems to be very good at small-scale fighting, whereas CNN might be
> better-suited to fuseki.  I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that 19x19
> is 4 times 9x9, but borders of teacups overlap, so a flitting-around fovea
> is needed rather than a stationary one, and that requires a CEO to tell it
> where to flit.  Or, rather, to tell them where to flit, if there were an
> internetworked army of foveas, each doing his own local reconnaisance and
> reporting back to HQ.
>
> That CEO, like all CEOs, can make the big decisions, but having a head no
> smarter than a toilet-cleaner's or rice-paddy plougher's, it can only do so
> much, so it needs to be supported by a cabinet of consultants, each of whom
> has its own set of information filters and labour force, to offer the CEO a
> small set (7 plus or minus 2) of simple choices.  In the real world, the
> Sir Humphreys always ensure that their Minister makes the choice they want
> him to make, but in the mind of a machine, rational objective globally
> beneficial decisions are theoretically possible.
>
> This message is only for those who haven't lost the idealism of youth, as
> old dogs don't like new tricks and more often than not would would rather
> shoot the messenger than contemplate the message.  It might happen in
> academia, if ITers ever learn to follow the example of their medical
> colleagues, whose lists of authors are usually longer than the substantive
> content of their papers.
>
> How could it happen?  Don't ask me - i'm a Steppenwolf.  Besides, i am far
> too busy with much more important things like smelling roses, so i don't
> have the time.
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go