Re: [computer-go] Sylvain's results
During last year i played a dozen of 9x9 games against a 1d (on a turn based site) and won 50% (and I don't think it will improve much if I played some more games). On 19x19 my winning percentage against the same player during the same period was 95% over dozens of games. (all even games with alternating colors and 6.5 komi). The statistics for similar pairings between similar players on this site are similar to these, so strength differences on 19x19 between fairly strong players are much less clear on 9x9. For me this is an indication than my play on 19x19 is closer to perfect, because in general I would expect that in near perfect play the stronger player would win almost 100% of his games (perfect komi assumed) like Lee Chang Ho 9p will win near 100% against any player who is not one of the world's top 20. My explanation would be that I lack experience and heuristic knowledge on 9x9 openings and I also feel that there is very little room for error on 9x9. So unknowingly I regularly play a game losing move early in the game. Only later in the game (which means too late in 9x9) i realize that the game is lost. This causes more randomness in my results. Dave - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: woensdag, april 11, 2007 8:01 pm Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Sylvain's results On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:49 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: BTW. There is another stone in the way of 19x19 computer go. Knowledge. Humans play much stronger and do much stronger judgment than in 9x9. I think you said this backwards from what you intended. Obviously, humans are closer to perfect play and understand 9x9 better than 19x19.Someone on this group even expressed the opinion that professional players are close to perfect at 9x9. At 19x19 I'm sure there is a great deal of distance to cover even for the very top players. - 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] an idea... computer go program's rank vs time
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Matt Gokey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: maandag, januari 22, 2007 9:59 pm Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea... computer go program's rank vs time Nick Apperson wrote: He is saying this (I think): to read m moves deep with a branching factor of b you need to look at p positions, where p is given by the following formula: p = b^m (actually slightly different, but this formula is close enough) which is: log(p) = m log(b) m = log(p) / log(b) We assume that a doubling in time should double the number of positions we can look at, so: m(with doubled time) = log(2p) / log(b) m(with doubled time) = log(2) * log(p) / log(b) Your math is wrong (I think). The correct equivalency for the last line would be: m(with doubled time) = (log(2) + log(p)) / log(b) Yes. Don's scalability argument states that ELO gain is proportional to time doubling. For me scalable use of time implies that time translates into depth. The extra depth is: m - m0 = log(2)/log(b). So if the ELO gain for time doubling in Chess equals 100 over a wide time scale and if Go has a 10 times larger branching factor than Chess, then the ELO gain for time doubling in Go would equal 100/log (10) = 43 (everything else assumed equal). I'm not sure i agree with Don, but i just want so say that if he is right, than mathematically he is also right with a larger branching factor. Dave ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's rank.
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Ray Tayek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 4:18 am Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's rank. also i suspect that at least 33% of the moves (at my 1-dan level) are wrong (what you might call in chess a blunder?). what do other people of different strengths think about this 33%? I don't know the percentage of blunders. It also depends on what you call a blunder. Is a 1 point mistake a blunder? But on average it would seem that a player loses about 13 points per game per grade separation from perfect play (11d?), implied by the definition of grade difference in relation to compensation by handicap stones. I don't know what the distribution of these mistakes related to their size would be (it would be interesting to find out), but I suspect the small mistakes would be more numerous. For a 1d this would imply a loss of about 130 points over the course of about 130 moves played by him in a game. So on average he loses 1 point per move. I would guess that a handful of mistakes would be big, but most moves lose just a little bit or nothing at all. Dave ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's rank.
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 7:02 pm Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's rank. By the way, can I assume that in world champion GO matches they use fast time controls because long time controls don't help in Go? Of course time helps. I guess the difference between 8 hours time and 1 hour time gives an advantage of about 13 points (1 amateur grade) at the top professional level, which will probably swing the winning percentage from 50% to 90% at that level. Is this about 200 ELO? I would also benefit from more time. However, i don't think that 8 folding the time limit once more will bring the same 200 ELO increase in winning probability. The human mind does not scale like this, i think. Also you have to train to use this much time effectively, to stretch you attention span as much as possible. In Europe time limits in tournaments are usually set to about 1.5 hours. Increasing it to 4 hours will surely improve my winning probability, because i can avoid a lot of (mostly tactical) mistakes. My guess is i may gain about 20 points (i guess that corresponds to 150 ELO at my level). But giving me 8 hours will not improve it very much more. I don't think any time limit will increase my level by more than 200 ELO (30 points?), because: 1- I would not have the stamina to use this extra time effectively. 2- Mark Boon pointed out the problem of conceptual barriers. I just lack some of the concepts that 7d players master and I can't master these concepts on my own by thinking very hard during the course of a game. Dave ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's rank.
- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: zaterdag, januari 20, 2007 9:06 pm Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's rank. Years ago A player in the chess club kept beating me over the head with a non-standard opening move that was difficult to refute. I got sick of this, sat down in the privacy of my own home and didn't get back up until I discovered the correct response.In effect I consulted a much stronger player, myself, given a lot of extra time. I think I spent about 2 hours on this - so it was as if I consulted a player a few hundred ELO points stronger. I found a move I had no chance of finding in 20 or 30 seconds, even after repeated ad-hoc unstructured attempts. As soon as a started playing this move, my opponent stopped using it and he had to work harder to beat me. It seems really odd to me that you are incapable of doing this in GO, or that the games are too different. If that's the case, then I prefer Chess, it is a far deeper game. I would find any game boring if it was so limited that there is nothing to think about that can't be seen in just a few moments. In my opinion in Go a game leaves the standard opening book very quickly, usually early in the opening. There are so many ways to play in the opening. If you opponent is trying to manipulate you into his favourite joseki(the taisha joseki for instance, with its proverbial 1000 variations), you have so many options to avoid it. But usually you just don't know what my opponent will play, so preparing for a particulal opponent is usually a waste of time. In my opinion, the difference is that in Go the possibity of variation is so great that a player is forced to rely on his own strength much earlier in the game than in Chess (in relation to the full length of a game). My level is 4d. For me the way to improve my results is studying professional games and Go problems. The aim is to get a very wide and general knowledge, more than a very deep knowledge of particular situations, because the level of variation in Go is so great. By improving you general knowledge of the game, you improve you ability to handle all those unique situations for which you cannot prepare in particular. Dave ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's rank.
In my opinion lowering the time limit just forces players (human and computer) towards random play. I am sure there exists a time limit where a random playing program can beat Lee Chang-Ho 50% of the time. But what is the use of that? To me it sounds like an invention to be able to show some progress in computer go, even if programs don't become very much stronger over the years: at least they will become quicker :) Dave - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: donderdag, januari 18, 2007 11:19 pm Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's rank. There is one way to attempt to adjust for this - give the computer a 1 or 2 second penalty for each move. - Don On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:06 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote: especially because computers don't have to click the relevent move with a mouse. They just think it and its done. Make a computer go program move the mouse and click like the human or make a computer go program physically place the stone on the board and if a computer can win in speed go, i'll be impressed then. Although that is a somewhat different task ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help!
And Mark Boon also neglected the future use of wormholes, replicators and who knows what? :) Sorry, but how do you what future quantum computers can churn so much data? 10^400 is a rediculously large number. Even if you multiply the volume of the visible universe expressed in in cubic Planck lengths (1.4 e26 1.6x10^-36 m) by the age of the universe expressed in Planck times (5.4x10^-44 s) and the higher estimate for the number of particles in the universe (10^87) you get only 10^326, wich is much, much smaller than 10^400. It is impossible to handle this much data in the lifetime of the universe, whatever the technology. Even if a device would use every particle and every spacetime wrinkle in the universe in a big parallel quantum computer at a clock cycle of 10^44 hz. I do believe someone (something?) will eventually be able to build a program that beats any human. But solve go? Never. Dave - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: vrijdag, januari 12, 2007 7:03 pm Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help! You neglected to consider the power of future quantum computers. On 1/12/07, Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12-jan-07, at 14:16, Chris Fant wrote: Plus, some would argue that any Go already is solved (write simple algorithm and wait 1 billion years while it runs). To 'solve' a game in the strict sense you need to know the best answer to every move. And you need to be able to prove that it's the best move. To do so you need to look at the following number of positions AMP^(AGL/2) where AMP is average number of moves in a position and AGL is the average game length. If I take a conservative AGL of 260 moves, we can compute the AMP from that, being (365+(365-AGL))/2=235 So we get 235^130, which is about 10^300 as a lower bound. The upper bound is something like 195^170 (play until all groups have 2 eyes) which my calculator is unable to compute, but I think it's roughly 10^400. I'm guessing it's questionable whether we'd be able to compute that even with a computer the size of this planet before the sun goes out. Distributing the work over other planets or star- sysems will only help marginally due to the time it takes to send information to Earth by the speed of light. So I'd say it's impossible. Mark ___ 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] Re: Interesting problem
In our club we estimate twice the komi for sente equal to a handicap stone, except for the first handicap stone one, which is just one time the komi. Using a komi of 6.5 for sente amounts to: Hand. Value 1 = 6.5 2 = 19.5 3 = 32.5 4 = 45.5 5 = 58.5 6 = 71.5 7 = 84.5 8 = 97.5 9 = 110.5 Using a komi of 6 for sente amounts to: Hand. Value 1 = 6 2 = 18 3 = 30 4 = 42 5 = 54 6 = 66 7 = 78 8 = 90 9 = 102 These estimates are fairly close to yours. Dave - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: alain Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: vrijdag, januari 5, 2007 8:17 pm Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem Le jeudi 4 janvier 2007 22:37, Don Dailey a écrit : I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game? Could he carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect opponents wishes? 9 handicap is equivalent to 120-150 komi (this is estimated by pro playerstaking 9 handi and playing at maximum strenght) 8 h = 100 komi 4h = 40 komi Alain ___ 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/
