Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Pierce T. Wetter III]

Pardon my cynicism but I think Germany just guaranteed that other countries 
will develop self driving cars first and Germany will end up adapting someone 
elses solution after they’ve test driven it on _their_ citizens. Which may be 
their intent...

All of the self-driving car “knowledge" will be fuzzy. At best this rule makes 
lawyers rich.

On Oct 30, 2017, 11:36 PM -0700, Robert Jasiek , wrote:
> On 30.10.2017 19:22, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
> > this car and this child
>
> In Germany, an ethics commission has written ethical guidelines for
> self-driving cars with also the rule to always prefer avoiding
> casualties of human beings.
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Thomas Rohde]

On 2017-11-01 at 11:48, adrian.b.rob...@gmail.com wrote:

> Robert Jasiek  writes:
> 
>>> [..] 
>> 
>> In Germany, an ethics commission has written ethical guidelines for 
>> self-driving cars with also the rule to always prefer avoiding casualties of 
>> human beings.
> 
> Did they consult Isaac Asimov on this?

Should actually have been their first thought, IMO (and I guess they were), 
Asimov’s Laws of Robotics should be obligatory reading for everybody in 
robotics. (and probably should be expanded/modernised — adapted to contemporary 
knowledge)


> Jokes aside, it's interesting to see some convergence of science to science 
> fiction..

Not surprising, IMO, since many of the best SF writers, including Asimov, 
actually were and are scientists and/or engineers. And scientists (as well as 
engineers, even industrial designers) often take their ideas from SF, again 
unsurprising … I’d assume that reading SF has inspired many people to pursue 
science, engineering, astronautics, etc.

Also, there is the word “science” in Science Fiction, which should tell us 
something. SF is not necessarily always “space opera” with goodies and baddies 
and alien monsters, space opera is often not much more than cowboy stories in 
“spacey” apparel.

Forgive the off-topic … as an avid SF reader I was triggered ;-)


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Adrian . B . Robert]

Robert Jasiek  writes:

> On 30.10.2017 19:22, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
>> this car and this child
>
> In Germany, an ethics commission has written ethical guidelines for
> self-driving cars with also the rule to always prefer avoiding
> casualties of human beings.

Did they consult Isaac Asimov on this?

Jokes aside, it's interesting to see some convergence of science
to science fiction..

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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Marc Landgraf]

There is even a decent site for those situations:

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ (select language and then click "start
judging")

2017-10-31 7:55 GMT+01:00 Petri Pitkanen :

> and we can allways come up with bizarre situation like casualties insidet
> the vehicle vs casualties to persoons outside the vehicle. I am pretty sure
> this will a long discussion with huge research gaps on ethics  as well as
> in engineering
>
> 2017-10-31 7:00 GMT+02:00 Robert Jasiek :
>
>> On 30.10.2017 19:22, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
>>
>>> this car and this child
>>>
>>
>> In Germany, an ethics commission has written ethical guidelines for
>> self-driving cars with also the rule to always prefer avoiding casualties
>> of human beings.
>>
>>
>> --
>> robert jasiek
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Lucas Baker]

Actually, you can try impersonating the AI yourself:
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:16 PM Petri Pitkanen 
wrote:

> and we can allways come up with bizarre situation like casualties insidet
> the vehicle vs casualties to persoons outside the vehicle. I am pretty sure
> this will a long discussion with huge research gaps on ethics  as well as
> in engineering
>
> 2017-10-31 7:00 GMT+02:00 Robert Jasiek :
>
>> On 30.10.2017 19:22, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
>>
>>> this car and this child
>>>
>>
>> In Germany, an ethics commission has written ethical guidelines for
>> self-driving cars with also the rule to always prefer avoiding casualties
>> of human beings.
>>
>>
>> --
>> robert jasiek
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Petri Pitkanen]

and we can allways come up with bizarre situation like casualties insidet
the vehicle vs casualties to persoons outside the vehicle. I am pretty sure
this will a long discussion with huge research gaps on ethics  as well as
in engineering

2017-10-31 7:00 GMT+02:00 Robert Jasiek :

> On 30.10.2017 19:22, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
>
>> this car and this child
>>
>
> In Germany, an ethics commission has written ethical guidelines for
> self-driving cars with also the rule to always prefer avoiding casualties
> of human beings.
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 30.10.2017 19:22, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:

this car and this child


In Germany, an ethics commission has written ethical guidelines for 
self-driving cars with also the rule to always prefer avoiding 
casualties of human beings.


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Álvaro Begué]

I am not sure how people are designing self-driving cars, but if it were up
to me, it would be very explicitly about maximizing expected utility. A
neural network can be trained to estimate the expected sum of future
rewards, usually with some exponential future discount. Actually, that's
explicitly what Q-learning does, and it's not that different from how
AlphaGo's value network works.

The fact that it's hard to figure out why a neural network did what it did
is not worse than the situation with humans. We don't understand neurology
well enough to know why someone didn't see a pedestrian or a red light. And
somehow the legal system doesn't collapse. In the case of neural networks,
the case that resulted in the accident and similar cases can be added to
the training database to make future versions of the network more robust,
so over time the number of accidents should drop fast.

Álvaro.



On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Pierce T. Wetter III <
pie...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> I would argue that if I was an engineer for a hypothetical autonomous car
> manufacturer, that it would be critically important to keep a running
> circular buffer of all the inputs over time for the car. Sort of like how
> existing cars have Dash Cams that continuously record to flash, but only
> keep the video if you tell it to or it detects major G forces.
>
> To your point, I’m not sure the car would necessarily be able to tell tree
> from child, tree might be “certain large obstacle” and child is “smaller
> large obstacle”. So that would give them the same utility function -1000.
> But utility functions are rarely so straightforward in a neural network as
> you suppose.
>
> I think it would take differential analysis (A term I just made up) to
> determine the utility function, which is why having a continuous log of all
> the input streams is necessary.
>
> On Oct 30, 2017, 3:45 PM -0700, Álvaro Begué ,
> wrote:
>
> In your hypothetical scenario, if the car can give you as much debugging
> information as you suggest (100% tree is there, 95% child is there), you
> can actually figure out what's happening. The only other piece of
> information you need is the configured utility values for the possible
> outcomes.
>
> Say the utility of hitting a tree is -1000, the utility of hitting a child
> is -5000 and the utility of not hitting anything is 0. A rational agent
> maximizes the expected value of the utility function. So:
>  - Option A: Hit the tree. Expected utility = -1000.
>  - Option B: Avoid the tree, possibly hitting the child, if there is a
> child there after all. Expected utility: 0.95 * (-5000) + 0.05 * 0 = -4750.
>
> So the car should pick option A. If the configured utility function is
> such that hitting a tree and hitting a child have the same value, the
> lawyers would be correct that the programmers are endangering the public
> with their bad programming.
>
> Álvaro.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Pierce T. Wetter III <
> pie...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> Unlike humans, who have these pesky things called rights, we can abuse
>> our computer programs to deduce why they made decisions. I can see a future
>> where that has to happen. From my experience in trying to best the stock
>> market with an algorithm I can tell you that you have to be able to explain
>> why something happened, or the CEO will rest control away from the
>> engineers.
>>
>> Picture a court case where the engineers for an electric car are called
>> upon to testify about why a child was killed by their self driving car. The
>> fact that the introduction of the self-driving car has reduced the accident
>> rate by 99% doesn’t matter, because the court case is about *this* car
>> and *this* child. The 99% argument is for the closing case, or for the
>> legislature, but it’s early yet.
>>
>> The Manufacturer throws up their arms and says “we dunno, sorry”.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the plaintiff has hired someone who has manipulated the inputs
>> to the neural net, and they’ve figured out that the car struck the child,
>> because the car was 100% sure the tree was there, but it could only be 95%
>> sure the child was there. So it ruthlessly aimed for the lesser
>> probability.
>>
>> The plaintiff’s lawyer argues that a human would have rather hit a tree
>> than a child.
>>
>> Jury awards $100M in damages to the plaintiffs.
>>
>> I would think it would be possible to do “differential” analysis on AGZ
>> positions to see why AGZ made certain moves. Add an eye to a weak group,
>> etc. Essentially that’s what we’re doing with MCTS, right?
>>
>> It seems like a fun research project to try to build a system that can
>> reverse engineer AGZ, and not only would it be fun, but its a moral
>> imperative.
>>
>> Pierce
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>
>
> 

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Pierce T. Wetter III]

I would argue that if I was an engineer for a hypothetical autonomous car 
manufacturer, that it would be critically important to keep a running circular 
buffer of all the inputs over time for the car. Sort of like how existing cars 
have Dash Cams that continuously record to flash, but only keep the video if 
you tell it to or it detects major G forces.

To your point, I’m not sure the car would necessarily be able to tell tree from 
child, tree might be “certain large obstacle” and child is “smaller large 
obstacle”. So that would give them the same utility function -1000. But utility 
functions are rarely so straightforward in a neural network as you suppose.

I think it would take differential analysis (A term I just made up) to 
determine the utility function, which is why having a continuous log of all the 
input streams is necessary.

On Oct 30, 2017, 3:45 PM -0700, Álvaro Begué , wrote:
> In your hypothetical scenario, if the car can give you as much debugging 
> information as you suggest (100% tree is there, 95% child is there), you can 
> actually figure out what's happening. The only other piece of information you 
> need is the configured utility values for the possible outcomes.
>
> Say the utility of hitting a tree is -1000, the utility of hitting a child is 
> -5000 and the utility of not hitting anything is 0. A rational agent 
> maximizes the expected value of the utility function. So:
>  - Option A: Hit the tree. Expected utility = -1000.
>  - Option B: Avoid the tree, possibly hitting the child, if there is a child 
> there after all. Expected utility: 0.95 * (-5000) + 0.05 * 0 = -4750.
>
> So the car should pick option A. If the configured utility function is such 
> that hitting a tree and hitting a child have the same value, the lawyers 
> would be correct that the programmers are endangering the public with their 
> bad programming.
>
> Álvaro.
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Pierce T. Wetter III 
> >  wrote:
> > > Unlike humans, who have these pesky things called rights, we can abuse 
> > > our computer programs to deduce why they made decisions. I can see a 
> > > future where that has to happen. From my experience in trying to best the 
> > > stock market with an algorithm I can tell you that you have to be able to 
> > > explain why something happened, or the CEO will rest control away from 
> > > the engineers.
> > >
> > > Picture a court case where the engineers for an electric car are called 
> > > upon to testify about why a child was killed by their self driving car. 
> > > The fact that the introduction of the self-driving car has reduced the 
> > > accident rate by 99% doesn’t matter, because the court case is about this 
> > > car and this child. The 99% argument is for the closing case, or for the 
> > > legislature, but it’s early yet.
> > >
> > > The Manufacturer throws up their arms and says “we dunno, sorry”.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, the plaintiff has hired someone who has manipulated the inputs 
> > > to the neural net, and they’ve figured out that the car struck the child, 
> > > because the car was 100% sure the tree was there, but it could only be 
> > > 95% sure the child was there. So it ruthlessly aimed for the lesser 
> > > probability.
> > >
> > > The plaintiff’s lawyer argues that a human would have rather hit a tree 
> > > than a child.
> > >
> > > Jury awards $100M in damages to the plaintiffs.
> > >
> > > I would think it would be possible to do “differential” analysis on AGZ 
> > > positions to see why AGZ made certain moves. Add an eye to a weak group, 
> > > etc. Essentially that’s what we’re doing with MCTS, right?
> > >
> > > It seems like a fun research project to try to build a system that can 
> > > reverse engineer AGZ, and not only would it be fun, but its a moral 
> > > imperative.
> > >
> > > Pierce
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Álvaro Begué]

In your hypothetical scenario, if the car can give you as much debugging
information as you suggest (100% tree is there, 95% child is there), you
can actually figure out what's happening. The only other piece of
information you need is the configured utility values for the possible
outcomes.

Say the utility of hitting a tree is -1000, the utility of hitting a child
is -5000 and the utility of not hitting anything is 0. A rational agent
maximizes the expected value of the utility function. So:
 - Option A: Hit the tree. Expected utility = -1000.
 - Option B: Avoid the tree, possibly hitting the child, if there is a
child there after all. Expected utility: 0.95 * (-5000) + 0.05 * 0 = -4750.

So the car should pick option A. If the configured utility function is such
that hitting a tree and hitting a child have the same value, the lawyers
would be correct that the programmers are endangering the public with their
bad programming.

Álvaro.



On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Pierce T. Wetter III <
pie...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> Unlike humans, who have these pesky things called rights, we can abuse our
> computer programs to deduce why they made decisions. I can see a future
> where that has to happen. From my experience in trying to best the stock
> market with an algorithm I can tell you that you have to be able to explain
> why something happened, or the CEO will rest control away from the
> engineers.
>
> Picture a court case where the engineers for an electric car are called
> upon to testify about why a child was killed by their self driving car. The
> fact that the introduction of the self-driving car has reduced the accident
> rate by 99% doesn’t matter, because the court case is about *this* car
> and *this* child. The 99% argument is for the closing case, or for the
> legislature, but it’s early yet.
>
> The Manufacturer throws up their arms and says “we dunno, sorry”.
>
> Meanwhile, the plaintiff has hired someone who has manipulated the inputs
> to the neural net, and they’ve figured out that the car struck the child,
> because the car was 100% sure the tree was there, but it could only be 95%
> sure the child was there. So it ruthlessly aimed for the lesser
> probability.
>
> The plaintiff’s lawyer argues that a human would have rather hit a tree
> than a child.
>
> Jury awards $100M in damages to the plaintiffs.
>
> I would think it would be possible to do “differential” analysis on AGZ
> positions to see why AGZ made certain moves. Add an eye to a weak group,
> etc. Essentially that’s what we’re doing with MCTS, right?
>
> It seems like a fun research project to try to build a system that can
> reverse engineer AGZ, and not only would it be fun, but its a moral
> imperative.
>
> Pierce
>
>
> ___
> 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Pierce T. Wetter III]

Unlike humans, who have these pesky things called rights, we can abuse our 
computer programs to deduce why they made decisions. I can see a future where 
that has to happen. From my experience in trying to best the stock market with 
an algorithm I can tell you that you have to be able to explain why something 
happened, or the CEO will rest control away from the engineers.

Picture a court case where the engineers for an electric car are called upon to 
testify about why a child was killed by their self driving car. The fact that 
the introduction of the self-driving car has reduced the accident rate by 99% 
doesn’t matter, because the court case is about this car and this child. The 
99% argument is for the closing case, or for the legislature, but it’s early 
yet.

The Manufacturer throws up their arms and says “we dunno, sorry”.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff has hired someone who has manipulated the inputs to 
the neural net, and they’ve figured out that the car struck the child, because 
the car was 100% sure the tree was there, but it could only be 95% sure the 
child was there. So it ruthlessly aimed for the lesser probability.

The plaintiff’s lawyer argues that a human would have rather hit a tree than a 
child.

Jury awards $100M in damages to the plaintiffs.

I would think it would be possible to do “differential” analysis on AGZ 
positions to see why AGZ made certain moves. Add an eye to a weak group, etc. 
Essentially that’s what we’re doing with MCTS, right?

It seems like a fun research project to try to build a system that can reverse 
engineer AGZ, and not only would it be fun, but its a moral imperative.

Pierce

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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[terry mcintyre via Computer-go]

Petri and Tom are correct; "intuition" and "subconscious" and "unobserved 
thought" are names for the same idea. 
AlphaGo Zero's neural network, regardless of how well it simulates human 
neurons or not, cannot be described as being similar to what we think of as the 
logical, rule-driven part of the human thought process; it is much more akin to 
the "intuition" or "subconscious" of a highly experienced player, wrapped 
together with a very logical process akin to what we humans call "reading." 
Terry McIntyre  Unix/Linux Systems Administration 
Taking time to do it right saves having to do it twice. 

On Sunday, October 29, 2017, 6:42:27 AM EDT, Petri Pitkanen 
 wrote:  
 
 intuition is handy word for truly automated information processing i.e 
subconscious.   And everything that train conscious decission making trains 
also the subconscious/intuiton. Intuiton nothing mythical just automation 
achieved via training
2017-10-29 5:08 GMT+02:00 Thomas Rohde :

On 2017-10-28 at 16:36, Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> IMO, intuition does not exist; it is nothing but an excuse for not 
> understanding subconscious or currently unobservable thinking yet. Can we 
> speak of human subconscious thinking, please?

Uhm, I always thought the short word for “subconscious thinking” was 
“intuition” ;-)

Reminds me of “A Table is a Table” (orig. “Ein Tisch ist ein Tisch”), a short 
story by Swiss writer Peter Bichsel

—> https://vimeo.com/11331609 (ten minutes video, English version)
—> https://vimeo.com/8749843 (German version)

“What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet”
— Shakespeare


Greetings, Tom

--
Thomas Rohde
Wiesenkamp 12, 29646 Bispingen, GERMANY
--
t...@bonobo.com
__ _
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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Petri Pitkanen]

intuition is handy word for truly automated information processing i.e
subconscious.   And everything that train conscious decission making trains
also the subconscious/intuiton. Intuiton nothing mythical just automation
achieved via training

2017-10-29 5:08 GMT+02:00 Thomas Rohde :

> On 2017-10-28 at 16:36, Robert Jasiek  wrote:
>
> > IMO, intuition does not exist; it is nothing but an excuse for not
> understanding subconscious or currently unobservable thinking yet. Can we
> speak of human subconscious thinking, please?
>
> Uhm, I always thought the short word for “subconscious thinking” was
> “intuition” ;-)
>
> Reminds me of “A Table is a Table” (orig. “Ein Tisch ist ein Tisch”), a
> short story by Swiss writer Peter Bichsel
>
> —> https://vimeo.com/11331609 (ten minutes video, English version)
> —> https://vimeo.com/8749843 (German version)
>
> “What's in a name? that which we call a rose
> By any other word would smell as sweet”
> — Shakespeare
>
>
> Greetings, Tom
>
> --
> Thomas Rohde
> Wiesenkamp 12, 29646 Bispingen, GERMANY
> --
> t...@bonobo.com
> ___
> 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Thomas Rohde]

On 2017-10-28 at 16:36, Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> IMO, intuition does not exist; it is nothing but an excuse for not 
> understanding subconscious or currently unobservable thinking yet. Can we 
> speak of human subconscious thinking, please?

Uhm, I always thought the short word for “subconscious thinking” was 
“intuition” ;-)

Reminds me of “A Table is a Table” (orig. “Ein Tisch ist ein Tisch”), a short 
story by Swiss writer Peter Bichsel

—> https://vimeo.com/11331609 (ten minutes video, English version)
—> https://vimeo.com/8749843 (German version)

“What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet”
— Shakespeare


Greetings, Tom

-- 
Thomas Rohde
Wiesenkamp 12, 29646 Bispingen, GERMANY
--
t...@bonobo.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 28.10.2017 11:13, Petri Pitkanen wrote:

Exactly verbalized rules lose to pure analysis power.


(I think with "verbalised" you mean "codified in writing", with "pure 
analysis power" you mean "volume of reading, calculation, sampling or NN 
processing".)


Rules are not meant to win or lose against "pure analysis power" but to 
use it when necessary and unavoidable, e.g., tactical reading when 
clarifying L+D status. A rule can be "Consider an attack if the L+D 
status is 'unsettled'" but also tactical reading determines that status.



Human intuition is trained with endless repetition.


IMO, intuition does not exist; it is nothing but an excuse for not 
understanding subconscious or currently unobservable thinking yet. Can 
we speak of human subconscious thinking, please?


Subconscious thinking can be trained by learning rules, practising 
problems etc. Conscious, explicit thinking can be trained by learning 
rules, practising problems etc. So what do you want to say?


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Petri Pitkanen]

Exactly verbalized rules lose to pure analysis power. Though much chess
intuiton is coded into  evaluation function. Buiding analysis trees to
alfa-beta pruning BUT in quite differently human woudl do it, just basic
idea/ideas are there.

Human intuition is trained with endless repetition. Like IM Jeremy Silman
who went through about hundred games a night while teenager (quite a feat
on actual board) to 'train' his pattern matcher.

I do doubt if anyone coudl codifly that information in fully transferrable
way at all. In teacher-pupil interaction somehow. But as an book, noway.
Hard to say what chess IM is go terms but whole chess Grand master to
Master ranks are within 300 elopoints-. And in upper echelons one Dan rank
is about 250-300 elopoints so IM woudl strongish 6dan perhaps , not quite
7dan.  So 4dan is way better than what I can drema of but still is chess
ranks that woudl be a like Elo 2000 a good player but no way near a master.
So I woudl say that the old way, how ever tedious and non-analytical is
still required to reach the top of game.

But then again teaching method to quickly reach a reasonable strength is
certainly needed. Mayre robert has it, do not know as have not tried

2017-10-28 1:39 GMT+03:00 uurtamo . :

> By way of comparison.
>
> It would be ludicrous to ask a world champion chess player to explain
> their strategy in a "programmable" way. it would certainly result in a
> player much worse than the best computer player, if it were to be coded up,
> even if you spent 40 years decoding intuition, etc, and got it exactly
> correct.
>
> Why do I say this? Because the best human player will lose > 90% of the
> time against the best computer player. And they understand their own
> intuition fairly well.
>
> Do we want to sit down and analyze the best human player's intuition?
> Perhaps. But certainly not to improve the best computer player. It can
> already crush all humans at pretty much every strength.
>
> s.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:
>
>> On 27.10.2017 13:58, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
>>
>>> doubt that your theory is any better than some competing ones.
>>>
>>
>> For some specialised topics, it is evident that my theory is better or
>> belongs to the few applicable theories (often by other amateur-player
>> researchers) worth considering.
>>
>> For a broad sense of "covering every aspect of go theory", I ask: what
>> competing theories? E.g., take verbal theory teaching by professional
>> players and they say, e.g., "Follow the natural flow of the game". I have
>> heard this for decades but still do not have the slightest idea what it
>> might mean. It assumes meaning only if I replace it by my theory. Or they
>> say: "Respect the beauty of shapes!" I have no idea what this means.
>>
>> A few particular professional players have reasonable theories on
>> specific topics and resembling methodical approach occurring in my theories.
>>
>> So what competing theories do you mean?
>>
>> The heritage of professional shape examples? If you want to call that
>> theory.
>>
>> As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different
>>> framework.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but where do they describe it? Almost all professional players I
>> have asked to explain their decision-making have said that they could not
>> because it would be intuition. A framework that is NOT theory.
>>
>>
>> --
>> robert jasiek
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[uurtamo .]

By way of comparison.

It would be ludicrous to ask a world champion chess player to explain their
strategy in a "programmable" way. it would certainly result in a player
much worse than the best computer player, if it were to be coded up, even
if you spent 40 years decoding intuition, etc, and got it exactly correct.

Why do I say this? Because the best human player will lose > 90% of the
time against the best computer player. And they understand their own
intuition fairly well.

Do we want to sit down and analyze the best human player's intuition?
Perhaps. But certainly not to improve the best computer player. It can
already crush all humans at pretty much every strength.

s.


On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> On 27.10.2017 13:58, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
>
>> doubt that your theory is any better than some competing ones.
>>
>
> For some specialised topics, it is evident that my theory is better or
> belongs to the few applicable theories (often by other amateur-player
> researchers) worth considering.
>
> For a broad sense of "covering every aspect of go theory", I ask: what
> competing theories? E.g., take verbal theory teaching by professional
> players and they say, e.g., "Follow the natural flow of the game". I have
> heard this for decades but still do not have the slightest idea what it
> might mean. It assumes meaning only if I replace it by my theory. Or they
> say: "Respect the beauty of shapes!" I have no idea what this means.
>
> A few particular professional players have reasonable theories on specific
> topics and resembling methodical approach occurring in my theories.
>
> So what competing theories do you mean?
>
> The heritage of professional shape examples? If you want to call that
> theory.
>
> As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different
>> framework.
>>
>
> Yes, but where do they describe it? Almost all professional players I have
> asked to explain their decision-making have said that they could not
> because it would be intuition. A framework that is NOT theory.
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 27.10.2017 13:58, Petri Pitkanen wrote:

doubt that your theory is any better than some competing ones.


For some specialised topics, it is evident that my theory is better or 
belongs to the few applicable theories (often by other amateur-player 
researchers) worth considering.


For a broad sense of "covering every aspect of go theory", I ask: what 
competing theories? E.g., take verbal theory teaching by professional 
players and they say, e.g., "Follow the natural flow of the game". I 
have heard this for decades but still do not have the slightest idea 
what it might mean. It assumes meaning only if I replace it by my 
theory. Or they say: "Respect the beauty of shapes!" I have no idea what 
this means.


A few particular professional players have reasonable theories on 
specific topics and resembling methodical approach occurring in my theories.


So what competing theories do you mean?

The heritage of professional shape examples? If you want to call that 
theory.



As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different
framework.


Yes, but where do they describe it? Almost all professional players I 
have asked to explain their decision-making have said that they could 
not because it would be intuition. A framework that is NOT theory.


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Petri Pitkanen]

You playing strength is anecdotal evidence. And quite often going through
just systematic way your thinking is more valuable than the actual end
product. As it programs you subconscious decision making. You said that it
is not part of your decision making but that is unlikely to be true. People
do not know when subconscious decision are made as the upper layer
rationalizes the decisions afterwards.
https://www.relationshipscoach.co.uk/blog/research-shows-our-subconscious-mind-makes-our-decisions-for-us/

and that is not bad. Your huge effort to become strong player did program
you intuitive decision making to such degree that it is worth listening.

I still would doubt that your theory is any better than some competing
ones. As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different
framework. Similarity is the directed and intentional search of truth.
Process is probably way more important the result. Obviousl I canno tprove
my point as my evidence is anecdotal

PP

2017-10-26 17:54 GMT+03:00 Robert Jasiek :

> On 26.10.2017 08:52, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately there is no proof that you principles work better than those
>> form eighties.
>>
>
> No computer-go proof.
>
> There is evidence in the form of my playing strength: with the principles
> "from the eighties", I got to circa 1 kyu. L+D reading practice etc. made
> me 3 dan. Afterwards, almost the only thing that made me stronger to 5 dan
> and then further improved my understanding was the invention of my own
> principles.
>
> My principles etc. also work for (an unknown fraction of) readers of my
> books and for a high percentage of my pupils but I cannot compare what the
> effect on them would have been if instead they would only have learnt the
> principles "from the eighties". I do, however, know that my principles
> provide me with very much more efficient means of teaching contents
> compared to using the principles "from the eighties".
>
> The principles "from the eighties" and my principles can be compared with
> each other. IMO, such a comparison is shocking: the principles "from the
> eighties" are very much weaker on average and altogether convey very much
> less contents.
>
> Nor there is any agreement that your pronciples form any
>> improvement over the old ones.
>>
>
> Only time constraints prevent me from doing an extensive comparison and so
> better support formation of an agreement.
>
> What is missing that I doubt that you can verbalise your go understanding
>> to degree that by applying those principles  I could become substantially
>> better player.
>>
>
> Different players are different. So different that some players claim to
> only learn from examples. Therefore, I cannot know whether you are a player
> who could learn well from principles etc.
>
> - My reading skills would not get any better
>>
>
> Do you say so after having learnt and invested effort in applying the
> contents of Tactical Reading?
>
> Regardless of the possible impact of that book, a great part of reading
> skill must be obtained by reading practice in games and problem solving. If
> your reading is much weaker than your knowledge of go theory, then it may
> be the case that almost only reading practise (plus possibly reading theory
> about improving one's reading practice) can significantly improve your
> strength at the moment.
>
> - your principles are more complex than you understand.
>>
>
> I do not think so:)
>
> Much of you know is
>> automated to degree that it is subconsciousness information.
>>
>
> From ca. 10 kyu to now, especially from 3 dan to now, I have reduced the
> impact of my subconscious thinking on my go decision-making and replaced it
> by knowledge, reading and positional judgement based on knowledge and
> reading. The still remaining subconscious thinking is small. Most of my
> remaining mistakes are related to psychology or subconscious thinking, when
> necessary because of explicit knowledge gaps or thinking time constraints.
>
> Transferring that information if hard.
>>
>
> Transferring it from principles etc. to code - yes.
>
> If you can build Go bot about  KGS 3/4dan strength
>>
>
> Using my approach, I expect several manyears, which I do not have for that
> purpose.
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Jim O'Flaherty]

It's related to this line of thinking by Douglas Hoffstadter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_(software)


Namaste,

Jim O'Flaherty
Founder/CEO
Precision Location Intelligence, Inc.
 • Irving, TX, USA
469-358-0633 <4693580633> • jim.oflaherty...@gmail.com •
www.linkedin.com/in/jimoflahertyjr

CONFIDENTIALITY / PROPRIETARY NOTICE:
The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is
confidential information for Precision Location Intelligence, Inc.. As
such, it may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or if you
received this message in error, then any direct or indirect disclosure,
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify Precision Location
Intelligence, Inc. by calling (214) 489-7779 <2144897779> immediately and
by sending a return e-mail; delete this message; and destroy all copies,
including attachments.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Xavier Combelle  wrote:

> what are semantic genetic algorithm ?
>
> to my knowledge genetic algorithm lead to poor result except as a
> metaheuristic in optimisation problem
>
> Le 26/10/2017 à 14:40, Jim O'Flaherty a écrit :
>
> When I get time to spend dozens of hours on computer go again, I plan to
> play in Robert's area with semantic genetic algorithms. I am an Architect
> Software Engineer. Robert's work will allow me better than starting
> entirely from random in much the same way AlphaGo bootstrapped from the
> 100K of professional games. AG0 then leveraged AlphaGo in knowing an
> architecture that was close enough. My intuition is my approach will be
> something similar in it's evolution.
>
> This is the way we're going to "automate" creating provided proofing of
> human cognition styled computer go players to assist humans in a gradient
> ascent learning cycle.
>
> So, Robert, I admire and am encouraged by your research for my own
> computer go projects in this area. Keep kicking butt in your unique way. We
> are in an interesting transition in this community. Stick it out. It will
> be worth it long term.
>
> On Oct 26, 2017 4:38 AM, "Petri Pitkanen" 
> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately there is no proof that you principles work better than
>> those form eighties. Nor there is any agreement that your pronciples form
>> any improvement over the old ones. Yes you are a  far better player than me
>> and shows that you are
>> - way better at reading
>> - have hugely better go understanding, principles if you like
>>
>> What is missing that I doubt that you can verbalise your go understanding
>> to degree that by applying those principles  I could become substantially
>> better player. again bulleting
>> - My reading skills would not get any better hence making much of value
>> any learning moot. Obviously issue on me not on your principles
>> - your principles are more complex than you understand. Much of you know
>> is automated to degree that it is subconsciousness information.
>> Transferring that information if hard. Usually done by re-playing master
>> games looking at problems i.e. training the darn neural net in the head
>>
>> If you can build Go bot about  KGS 3/4dan strength I am more than willing
>> to admit you are right and would even consider buying your  books.
>>
>> Petri
>>
>> 2017-10-26 6:21 GMT+03:00 Robert Jasiek :
>>
>>> On 25.10.2017 18:17, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>>>
 exact go theory is full of hole.

>>>
>>> WRT describing the whole game, yes, this is the current state. Solving
>>> go in a mathematical sense is a project for centuries.
>>>
>>> Actually, to my knowledge human can't apply only the exact go theory and
 play a decent game.

>>>
>>> Only for certain positions of a) late endgame, b) semeais, c) ko.
>>>
>>> If human can't do that, how it will teach a computer to do it magically ?

>>>
>>> IIRC, Martin Müller implemented CGT endgames a la Mathematical Go
>>> Endgames.
>>>
>>> The reason why (b) had became unpopular is because there is no go theory
 precise enough to implement it as an algorithm

>>>
>>> There is quite some theory of the 95% principle kind which might be
>>> implemented as approximation. E.g. "Usually, defend your weak important
>>> group." can be approximated by approximating "group", "important" (its loss
>>> is too large in a quick positional judgement), "weak" (can be killed in two
>>> successive moves), "defend" (after the move, cannot be killed in two
>>> successive moves), "usually" (always, unless there are several such groups
>>> and some must be chosen, say, randomly; the approximation being that the
>>> alternative strategy of large scale exchange is discarded).
>>>
>>> Besides, one must prioritise principles to solve conflicting principles
>>> by a higher order principle.

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Brian Sheppard via Computer-go]

Well,... good luck with that! :-)

Seriously: it is important to account for p-space completeness. That is, a set 
of rules that covers Go without conflict must be exponential in space usage.

Search has a triple role in system design. It accounts (at least 
asymptotically) for missing knowledge and also papers over disagreements 
between rules. It also evaluates the global situation, which allows rules to be 
expressed in terms of purely local effects.

From my perspective, that is too good a deal to pass by. But I don't want to be 
only a bearer of bad news. If you accept a limitation on your rule sets, then 
there is a higher level conflict resolution method that will lead to good 
results.

Your rules could express their effect as a local point gain, in the sense of 
"temperature". That is, temperature == the difference between moving first and 
letting the opponent move first. Then CGT provides a higher-order theory for 
rationalizing multiple priorities.

This suggestion only addresses one of the three roles of search, though perhaps 
the most important one.

Best,
Brian


-Original Message-
From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of 
Robert Jasiek
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:17 AM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

On 26.10.2017 13:52, Brian Sheppard via Computer-go wrote:
> MCTS is the glue that binds incompatible rules.

This is, however, not what I mean. Conflicting principles (call them rules if 
you like) must be dissolved by higher order principles. Only when all conflicts 
are dissolved should MCTS be applied.

What you describe has been used with success and better success than I expect 
what my knowledge-pure approach can currently achieve. But MCTS as glue for 
conflicting principles has also run into a boundary. I want to see that 
boundary surpassed by my pure approach.

--
robert jasiek
___
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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Xavier Combelle]

what are semantic genetic algorithm ?

to my knowledge genetic algorithm lead to poor result except as a
metaheuristic in optimisation problem


Le 26/10/2017 à 14:40, Jim O'Flaherty a écrit :
> When I get time to spend dozens of hours on computer go again, I plan
> to play in Robert's area with semantic genetic algorithms. I am an
> Architect Software Engineer. Robert's work will allow me better than
> starting entirely from random in much the same way AlphaGo
> bootstrapped from the 100K of professional games. AG0 then leveraged
> AlphaGo in knowing an architecture that was close enough. My intuition
> is my approach will be something similar in it's evolution.
>
> This is the way we're going to "automate" creating provided proofing
> of human cognition styled computer go players to assist humans in a
> gradient ascent learning cycle.
>
> So, Robert, I admire and am encouraged by your research for my own
> computer go projects in this area. Keep kicking butt in your unique
> way. We are in an interesting transition in this community. Stick it
> out. It will be worth it long term.
>
> On Oct 26, 2017 4:38 AM, "Petri Pitkanen"  > wrote:
>
> Unfortunately there is no proof that you principles work better
> than those form eighties. Nor there is any agreement that your
> pronciples form any improvement over the old ones. Yes you are a 
> far better player than me and shows that you are 
> - way better at reading 
> - have hugely better go understanding, principles if you like
>
> What is missing that I doubt that you can verbalise your go
> understanding to degree that by applying those principles  I could
> become substantially better player. again bulleting
> - My reading skills would not get any better hence making much of
> value any learning moot. Obviously issue on me not on your principles
> - your principles are more complex than you understand. Much of
> you know is automated to degree that it is subconsciousness
> information. Transferring that information if hard. Usually done
> by re-playing master games looking at problems i.e. training the
> darn neural net in the head
>
> If you can build Go bot about  KGS 3/4dan strength I am more than
> willing to admit you are right and would even consider buying
> your  books.
>
> Petri
>
> 2017-10-26 6:21 GMT+03:00 Robert Jasiek  >:
>
> On 25.10.2017 18:17, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>
> exact go theory is full of hole.
>
>
> WRT describing the whole game, yes, this is the current state.
> Solving go in a mathematical sense is a project for centuries.
>
> Actually, to my knowledge human can't apply only the exact
> go theory and
> play a decent game.
>
>
> Only for certain positions of a) late endgame, b) semeais, c) ko.
>
> If human can't do that, how it will teach a computer to do
> it magically ?
>
>
> IIRC, Martin Müller implemented CGT endgames a la Mathematical
> Go Endgames.
>
> The reason why (b) had became unpopular is because there
> is no go theory
> precise enough to implement it as an algorithm
>
>
> There is quite some theory of the 95% principle kind which
> might be implemented as approximation. E.g. "Usually, defend
> your weak important group." can be approximated by
> approximating "group", "important" (its loss is too large in a
> quick positional judgement), "weak" (can be killed in two
> successive moves), "defend" (after the move, cannot be killed
> in two successive moves), "usually" (always, unless there are
> several such groups and some must be chosen, say, randomly;
> the approximation being that the alternative strategy of large
> scale exchange is discarded).
>
> Besides, one must prioritise principles to solve conflicting
> principles by a higher order principle.
>
> IMO, such an expert system combined with tree reading and
> maybe MCTS to emulate reading used when a principle depends on
> reading can, with an effort of a few manyears of
> implementation, already achieve amateur mid dan. Not high dan
> yet because high dans can choose advanced strategies, such as
> global exchange, and there are no good enough principles for
> that yet, which would also consider necessary side conditions
> related to influence, aji etc. I need to work out such
> principles during the following years. Currently, the state is
> that weaker principles have identified the major topics
> (influence, aji etc.) to be considered in fights but they must
> be refined to create 95%+ principles.
>
> ***
>
> 

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 26.10.2017 08:52, Petri Pitkanen wrote:

Unfortunately there is no proof that you principles work better than those
form eighties.


No computer-go proof.

There is evidence in the form of my playing strength: with the 
principles "from the eighties", I got to circa 1 kyu. L+D reading 
practice etc. made me 3 dan. Afterwards, almost the only thing that made 
me stronger to 5 dan and then further improved my understanding was the 
invention of my own principles.


My principles etc. also work for (an unknown fraction of) readers of my 
books and for a high percentage of my pupils but I cannot compare what 
the effect on them would have been if instead they would only have 
learnt the principles "from the eighties". I do, however, know that my 
principles provide me with very much more efficient means of teaching 
contents compared to using the principles "from the eighties".


The principles "from the eighties" and my principles can be compared 
with each other. IMO, such a comparison is shocking: the principles 
"from the eighties" are very much weaker on average and altogether 
convey very much less contents.



Nor there is any agreement that your pronciples form any
improvement over the old ones.


Only time constraints prevent me from doing an extensive comparison and 
so better support formation of an agreement.



What is missing that I doubt that you can verbalise your go understanding
to degree that by applying those principles  I could become substantially
better player.


Different players are different. So different that some players claim to 
only learn from examples. Therefore, I cannot know whether you are a 
player who could learn well from principles etc.



- My reading skills would not get any better


Do you say so after having learnt and invested effort in applying the 
contents of Tactical Reading?


Regardless of the possible impact of that book, a great part of reading 
skill must be obtained by reading practice in games and problem solving. 
If your reading is much weaker than your knowledge of go theory, then it 
may be the case that almost only reading practise (plus possibly reading 
theory about improving one's reading practice) can significantly improve 
your strength at the moment.



- your principles are more complex than you understand.


I do not think so:)


Much of you know is
automated to degree that it is subconsciousness information.


From ca. 10 kyu to now, especially from 3 dan to now, I have reduced 
the impact of my subconscious thinking on my go decision-making and 
replaced it by knowledge, reading and positional judgement based on 
knowledge and reading. The still remaining subconscious thinking is 
small. Most of my remaining mistakes are related to psychology or 
subconscious thinking, when necessary because of explicit knowledge gaps 
or thinking time constraints.



Transferring that information if hard.


Transferring it from principles etc. to code - yes.


If you can build Go bot about  KGS 3/4dan strength


Using my approach, I expect several manyears, which I do not have for 
that purpose.


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 26.10.2017 13:52, Brian Sheppard via Computer-go wrote:

MCTS is the glue that binds incompatible rules.


This is, however, not what I mean. Conflicting principles (call them 
rules if you like) must be dissolved by higher order principles. Only 
when all conflicts are dissolved should MCTS be applied.


What you describe has been used with success and better success than I 
expect what my knowledge-pure approach can currently achieve. But MCTS 
as glue for conflicting principles has also run into a boundary. I want 
to see that boundary surpassed by my pure approach.


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Jim O'Flaherty]

When I get time to spend dozens of hours on computer go again, I plan to
play in Robert's area with semantic genetic algorithms. I am an Architect
Software Engineer. Robert's work will allow me better than starting
entirely from random in much the same way AlphaGo bootstrapped from the
100K of professional games. AG0 then leveraged AlphaGo in knowing an
architecture that was close enough. My intuition is my approach will be
something similar in it's evolution.

This is the way we're going to "automate" creating provided proofing of
human cognition styled computer go players to assist humans in a gradient
ascent learning cycle.

So, Robert, I admire and am encouraged by your research for my own computer
go projects in this area. Keep kicking butt in your unique way. We are in
an interesting transition in this community. Stick it out. It will be worth
it long term.

On Oct 26, 2017 4:38 AM, "Petri Pitkanen" 
wrote:

> Unfortunately there is no proof that you principles work better than those
> form eighties. Nor there is any agreement that your pronciples form any
> improvement over the old ones. Yes you are a  far better player than me and
> shows that you are
> - way better at reading
> - have hugely better go understanding, principles if you like
>
> What is missing that I doubt that you can verbalise your go understanding
> to degree that by applying those principles  I could become substantially
> better player. again bulleting
> - My reading skills would not get any better hence making much of value
> any learning moot. Obviously issue on me not on your principles
> - your principles are more complex than you understand. Much of you know
> is automated to degree that it is subconsciousness information.
> Transferring that information if hard. Usually done by re-playing master
> games looking at problems i.e. training the darn neural net in the head
>
> If you can build Go bot about  KGS 3/4dan strength I am more than willing
> to admit you are right and would even consider buying your  books.
>
> Petri
>
> 2017-10-26 6:21 GMT+03:00 Robert Jasiek :
>
>> On 25.10.2017 18:17, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>>
>>> exact go theory is full of hole.
>>>
>>
>> WRT describing the whole game, yes, this is the current state. Solving go
>> in a mathematical sense is a project for centuries.
>>
>> Actually, to my knowledge human can't apply only the exact go theory and
>>> play a decent game.
>>>
>>
>> Only for certain positions of a) late endgame, b) semeais, c) ko.
>>
>> If human can't do that, how it will teach a computer to do it magically ?
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, Martin Müller implemented CGT endgames a la Mathematical Go
>> Endgames.
>>
>> The reason why (b) had became unpopular is because there is no go theory
>>> precise enough to implement it as an algorithm
>>>
>>
>> There is quite some theory of the 95% principle kind which might be
>> implemented as approximation. E.g. "Usually, defend your weak important
>> group." can be approximated by approximating "group", "important" (its loss
>> is too large in a quick positional judgement), "weak" (can be killed in two
>> successive moves), "defend" (after the move, cannot be killed in two
>> successive moves), "usually" (always, unless there are several such groups
>> and some must be chosen, say, randomly; the approximation being that the
>> alternative strategy of large scale exchange is discarded).
>>
>> Besides, one must prioritise principles to solve conflicting principles
>> by a higher order principle.
>>
>> IMO, such an expert system combined with tree reading and maybe MCTS to
>> emulate reading used when a principle depends on reading can, with an
>> effort of a few manyears of implementation, already achieve amateur mid
>> dan. Not high dan yet because high dans can choose advanced strategies,
>> such as global exchange, and there are no good enough principles for that
>> yet, which would also consider necessary side conditions related to
>> influence, aji etc. I need to work out such principles during the following
>> years. Currently, the state is that weaker principles have identified the
>> major topics (influence, aji etc.) to be considered in fights but they must
>> be refined to create 95%+ principles.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> In the 80s and 90s, expert systems failed to do better than ca. 5 kyu
>> because principles were only marginally better than 50%. Today, (my)
>> average principles discard the weaker, 50% principles and are ca. 75%.
>> Tomorrow, the 75% principles can be discarded for an average of 95%
>> principles. Expert systems get their chance again! Their major disadvantage
>> remains: great manpower is required for implementation. The advantage is
>> semantical understanding.
>>
>> --
>> robert jasiek
>>
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>
>
>
> 

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Brian Sheppard via Computer-go]

Robert is right, but Robert seems to think this hasn't been done. Actually 
every prominent non-neural MCTS program since Mogo has been based on the exact 
design that Robert describes. The best of them achieve somewhat greater 
strength than Robert expects.

MCTS is the glue that binds incompatible rules. It rationalizes different 
heuristics into a coherent whole by testing the ideas in a competition against 
one another using a meaningful evaluation (win/loss).

Best,
Brian

-Original Message-
From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of 
Xavier Combelle
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 1:50 AM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?



>> The reason why (b) had became unpopular is because there is no go 
>> theory precise enough to implement it as an algorithm
>
> There is quite some theory of the 95% principle kind which might be 
> implemented as approximation. E.g. "Usually, defend your weak 
> important group." can be approximated by approximating "group", 
> "important" (its loss is too large in a quick positional judgement), 
> "weak" (can be killed in two successive moves), "defend" (after the 
> move, cannot be killed in two successive moves), "usually" (always, 
> unless there are several such groups and some must be chosen, say, 
> randomly; the approximation being that the alternative strategy of 
> large scale exchange is discarded).
>
> Besides, one must prioritise principles to solve conflicting 
> principles by a higher order principle.
>
> IMO, such an expert system combined with tree reading and maybe MCTS 
> to emulate reading used when a principle depends on reading can, with 
> an effort of a few manyears of implementation, already achieve amateur 
> mid dan. Not high dan yet because high dans can choose advanced 
> strategies, such as global exchange, and there are no good enough 
> principles for that yet, which would also consider necessary side 
> conditions related to influence, aji etc. I need to work out such 
> principles during the following years. Currently, the state is that 
> weaker principles have identified the major topics (influence, aji
> etc.) to be considered in fights but they must be refined to create 
> 95%+ principles.
>
> ***
>
> In the 80s and 90s, expert systems failed to do better than ca. 5 kyu 
> because principles were only marginally better than 50%. Today, (my) 
> average principles discard the weaker, 50% principles and are ca. 75%.
> Tomorrow, the 75% principles can be discarded for an average of 95% 
> principles. Expert systems get their chance again! Their major 
> disadvantage remains: great manpower is required for implementation.
> The advantage is semantical understanding.
>
From a software developer point of view enlighten by my knowledge of history of 
ai and history of go development,
 such approximate definition is close to useless to build a software at the 
current state of art.
One of the reason is as you state the considerable work it would require to 
implement a huge number of imprecise rules.
As you are not a software developer, I want you to look on this comics which 
state the difference between apparent difficulty and real difficulty of 
developping software. https://xkcd.com/1425/ As far as I understand your task 
to implement such an expert system would require the many years of 
implementations would be thousands of years.
As far as my experience speak the expected reward would be a win of one or two 
rank and so definitely not a mid dan amateur level.

Xavier Combelle

___
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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Petri Pitkanen]

Unfortunately there is no proof that you principles work better than those
form eighties. Nor there is any agreement that your pronciples form any
improvement over the old ones. Yes you are a  far better player than me and
shows that you are
- way better at reading
- have hugely better go understanding, principles if you like

What is missing that I doubt that you can verbalise your go understanding
to degree that by applying those principles  I could become substantially
better player. again bulleting
- My reading skills would not get any better hence making much of value any
learning moot. Obviously issue on me not on your principles
- your principles are more complex than you understand. Much of you know is
automated to degree that it is subconsciousness information. Transferring
that information if hard. Usually done by re-playing master games looking
at problems i.e. training the darn neural net in the head

If you can build Go bot about  KGS 3/4dan strength I am more than willing
to admit you are right and would even consider buying your  books.

Petri

2017-10-26 6:21 GMT+03:00 Robert Jasiek :

> On 25.10.2017 18:17, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>
>> exact go theory is full of hole.
>>
>
> WRT describing the whole game, yes, this is the current state. Solving go
> in a mathematical sense is a project for centuries.
>
> Actually, to my knowledge human can't apply only the exact go theory and
>> play a decent game.
>>
>
> Only for certain positions of a) late endgame, b) semeais, c) ko.
>
> If human can't do that, how it will teach a computer to do it magically ?
>>
>
> IIRC, Martin Müller implemented CGT endgames a la Mathematical Go Endgames.
>
> The reason why (b) had became unpopular is because there is no go theory
>> precise enough to implement it as an algorithm
>>
>
> There is quite some theory of the 95% principle kind which might be
> implemented as approximation. E.g. "Usually, defend your weak important
> group." can be approximated by approximating "group", "important" (its loss
> is too large in a quick positional judgement), "weak" (can be killed in two
> successive moves), "defend" (after the move, cannot be killed in two
> successive moves), "usually" (always, unless there are several such groups
> and some must be chosen, say, randomly; the approximation being that the
> alternative strategy of large scale exchange is discarded).
>
> Besides, one must prioritise principles to solve conflicting principles by
> a higher order principle.
>
> IMO, such an expert system combined with tree reading and maybe MCTS to
> emulate reading used when a principle depends on reading can, with an
> effort of a few manyears of implementation, already achieve amateur mid
> dan. Not high dan yet because high dans can choose advanced strategies,
> such as global exchange, and there are no good enough principles for that
> yet, which would also consider necessary side conditions related to
> influence, aji etc. I need to work out such principles during the following
> years. Currently, the state is that weaker principles have identified the
> major topics (influence, aji etc.) to be considered in fights but they must
> be refined to create 95%+ principles.
>
> ***
>
> In the 80s and 90s, expert systems failed to do better than ca. 5 kyu
> because principles were only marginally better than 50%. Today, (my)
> average principles discard the weaker, 50% principles and are ca. 75%.
> Tomorrow, the 75% principles can be discarded for an average of 95%
> principles. Expert systems get their chance again! Their major disadvantage
> remains: great manpower is required for implementation. The advantage is
> semantical understanding.
>
> --
> robert jasiek
>
> ___
> 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Xavier Combelle]

>> The reason why (b) had became unpopular is because there is no go theory
>> precise enough to implement it as an algorithm
>
> There is quite some theory of the 95% principle kind which might be
> implemented as approximation. E.g. "Usually, defend your weak
> important group." can be approximated by approximating "group",
> "important" (its loss is too large in a quick positional judgement),
> "weak" (can be killed in two successive moves), "defend" (after the
> move, cannot be killed in two successive moves), "usually" (always,
> unless there are several such groups and some must be chosen, say,
> randomly; the approximation being that the alternative strategy of
> large scale exchange is discarded).
>
> Besides, one must prioritise principles to solve conflicting
> principles by a higher order principle.
>
> IMO, such an expert system combined with tree reading and maybe MCTS
> to emulate reading used when a principle depends on reading can, with
> an effort of a few manyears of implementation, already achieve amateur
> mid dan. Not high dan yet because high dans can choose advanced
> strategies, such as global exchange, and there are no good enough
> principles for that yet, which would also consider necessary side
> conditions related to influence, aji etc. I need to work out such
> principles during the following years. Currently, the state is that
> weaker principles have identified the major topics (influence, aji
> etc.) to be considered in fights but they must be refined to create
> 95%+ principles.
>
> ***
>
> In the 80s and 90s, expert systems failed to do better than ca. 5 kyu
> because principles were only marginally better than 50%. Today, (my)
> average principles discard the weaker, 50% principles and are ca. 75%.
> Tomorrow, the 75% principles can be discarded for an average of 95%
> principles. Expert systems get their chance again! Their major
> disadvantage remains: great manpower is required for implementation.
> The advantage is semantical understanding.
>
From a software developer point of view enlighten by my knowledge of
history of ai and history of go development,
 such approximate definition is close to useless to build a software at
the current state of art.
One of the reason is as you state the considerable work it would require
to implement a huge number of imprecise rules.
As you are not a software developer, I want you to look on this comics
which state the difference between apparent difficulty and real difficulty
of developping software. https://xkcd.com/1425/
As far as I understand your task to implement such an expert system
would require the many years of implementations would be thousands of years.
As far as my experience speak the expected reward would be a win of one
or two rank and so definitely not a mid dan amateur level.

Xavier Combelle

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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Darren Cook]

> What do you want evaluate the software for ? corner cases which never
> have happen in a real game ?

If the purpose of this mailing list is a community to work out how to
make a 19x19 go program that can beat any human, then AlphaGo has
finished the job, and we can shut it down.

But this list has always been for anything related to computers and the
game of go. Right from John Tromp counting the number of games through
to tips and hints on the best compiler flags to use.

BTW, I noticed in the paper that it showed 3 games AlphaGo Zero lost to
AlphaGo Master: in game 11 Zero had white, in games 14 and 16 Zero had
black. An opponent that can only win 11% of games against it, was able
to win on both sides of the komi. Suggesting there is still quite a bit
of room for improvement.

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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Xavier Combelle]

Le 24/10/2017 à 22:41, Robert Jasiek a écrit :

> On 24.10.2017 20:19, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>> totally unrelated
>
> No, because a) software must also be evaluated and can by go theory and
What do you want evaluate the software for ? corner cases which never
have happen in a real game ?

The current testing way that deepmind used
that is: first of all making software and software-human tournament,
guess pro move, guess pro game result
was amply enough to make the best go software.

> b) software can be built on exact go theory. That currently (b) is
> unpopular does not mean unrelated.
>
It is just a wild guess. exact go theory is full of hole.
Actually, to my knowledge human can't apply only the exact go theory and
play a decent game.
If human can't do that, how it will teach a computer to do it magically ?

if you want we can setup a game were you apply only exact go theory
against me (I'm only 2 kyu)
The rules are the following, you have to apply mechanically the go
theory as a computer would do
at each move such as I could do exactly the same
and show in a detailed way how you applied it. If you won I will
recognize  the fact that the exact go
theory is not full of hole.

The reason why (b) had became unpopular is because there is no go theory
precise enough to implement it as an algorithm
and MCTS and neural network was way to use small or none part of go
theory and make a decent player.

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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[uurtamo .]

We're suffering under the burden of so much success from other methods that
​it's hard for many people to imagine that anything else is worth
considering.

Of course this is not true.

Tromp's enumerations are particularly enjoyable for me.

Human-built decision trees have been so unsuccessful, compared with
machine-learned models, for around 25 years, that only a few tiny wisps of
academia are interested in them in a serious way that industry can and
should take seriously.

Some control-system methods, some ILP, some NLP, etc., are all successful
counterexamples, in many cases in the field of logistics, transportation,
etc. Complicated games such as go have pretty much not fallen due to these
methods.

(As a coworker of mine said recently, "It's probably going to be okay to
hard-code the rule for the self-driving car not to hit pedestrians; there's
no need to train with lots of examples of hitting pedestrians to train your
algorithm".)

They (analytically exact methods) are still interesting to study from a
game-theoretic persepective, mathematically. There are exact solvers for
all kinds of specialized problems.

Problems with more than a few variables can very easily lead to many or
most cases not being exactly (analytically) soluble. That's why all of
these probabilistic approximation methods are so successful. They don't
have to be exactly right. It's easing the constraint most people care least
about (exact certitude of a win or success locally rather than an extremely
high probability of a win or success locally).

Asking the "high probability of success" guys to explain why their method
works is a particularly galling (and trite) way of messing with them. They
can just point to the results. The reason is that they don't know. And it's
going to be a very, very long time before they do.

At a fundamental level, probabilistic methods seem to be (some
theoreticians believe) more powerful than non-probabilistic methods for
relatively hard (as opposed to very very hard) problems. This is nicely
encoded by computational complexity theorists as the question BPP = P ?

steve



On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> On 24.10.2017 20:19, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>
>> totally unrelated
>>
>
> No, because a) software must also be evaluated and can by go theory and b)
> software can be built on exact go theory. That currently (b) is unpopular
> does not mean unrelated.
>
> --
> robert jasiek
>
> ___
> 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 24.10.2017 20:19, Xavier Combelle wrote:

totally unrelated


No, because a) software must also be evaluated and can by go theory and 
b) software can be built on exact go theory. That currently (b) is 
unpopular does not mean unrelated.


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Darren Cook]

Could we PLEASE take this off-list? If you don't like someone, or what
they post, filter them. If you think someone should be banned, present
your case to the list owner(s).

Darren

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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Xavier Combelle]

"In the current time, computer-go discussion and research has a very
high percentage of people discussing the side of mainly programs and
programming but I belong to the very low percentage of people
discussing mainly go-theoretical aspects of computer-go. With a higher
percentage of the latter, there would also be more discussions
resulting to something."

Now you explained what you describe what you mean by go-theoretical
aspects, which is your main area of interest,
I feel like they are totally unrelated to the purpose of this mailing list.

to quote the home page: http://computer-go.org/
"computer-go: Discussion on research and development of software that
plays the game of Go."

Now that is clear, I understand why I always felt your intervention
misplaced (because they were misplaced).

Le 24/10/2017 à 17:00, Robert Jasiek a écrit :
> On 24.10.2017 16:45, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>> I don't understand what you mean by go-theorical aspects.
>
> Go theory is an ambiguous term and means everything from informal
> ("Starting with a standard corner move can't be wrong.") via principle
> ("Usually, defend a weak important group.") to formal (
> https://senseis.xmp.net/?CycleLaw ).
>
>> and especially when applying to computer-go.
>
> Relating computer play / algorithms to go theory or vice versa adds
> another layer of difficulty indeed.
>
>> To my knowledge the only theoretical (in a
>> mathematic meaning of theoretical) approach of go is combinatorial
>> theory and it leads to very few knowledge.
>
> Other mathematical theory with practical relevance is related to
> capturing races (see Capturing Races 1 - Two Basic Groups, Thomas
> Wolf's papers etc., endgame (e.g.,
> http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/kodame.pdf and google for related proofs)
> or will be published by me later (will be quite a lot and have
> practical relevance, but you need to be patient). Research in
> mathematical go theory requires much time because exactness is often
> necessary and proving can be tricky.
>


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 24.10.2017 16:45, Xavier Combelle wrote:

I don't understand what you mean by go-theorical aspects.


Go theory is an ambiguous term and means everything from informal 
("Starting with a standard corner move can't be wrong.") via principle 
("Usually, defend a weak important group.") to formal ( 
https://senseis.xmp.net/?CycleLaw ).



and especially when applying to computer-go.


Relating computer play / algorithms to go theory or vice versa adds 
another layer of difficulty indeed.



To my knowledge the only theoretical (in a
mathematic meaning of theoretical) approach of go is combinatorial
theory and it leads to very few knowledge.


Other mathematical theory with practical relevance is related to 
capturing races (see Capturing Races 1 - Two Basic Groups, Thomas Wolf's 
papers etc., endgame (e.g., http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/kodame.pdf and 
google for related proofs) or will be published by me later (will be 
quite a lot and have practical relevance, but you need to be patient). 
Research in mathematical go theory requires much time because exactness 
is often necessary and proving can be tricky.


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Xavier Combelle]

Le 24/10/2017 à 14:35, Robert Jasiek a écrit :
> On 24.10.2017 11:45, David Ongaro wrote:
>> very seldom saw a discussion with Robert lead to anything.
>
> (You seem to only refer to discussion on this mailing list.)
>
> Apart from this being a discussion about one particular person, let me
> ignore this for a moment:
>
> In the current time, computer-go discussion and research has a very
> high percentage of people discussing the side of mainly programs and
> programming but I belong to the very low percentage of people
> discussing mainly go-theoretical aspects of computer-go. With a higher
> percentage of the latter, there would also be more discussions
> resulting to something.
>
I don't understand what you mean by go-theorical aspects. and especially
when applying to computer-go. To my knowledge the only theoretical (in a
mathematic meaning of theoretical) approach of go is combinatorial
theory and it leads to very few knowledge. Can you explain what you mean
maybe by giving example ?
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Jim O'Flaherty]

David Ongaro and Xavier Combelle,

I am respectfully requesting you stop inappropriately discussing and
addressing the person Robert Jasiek in your posts. He has not acted in any
way inappropriate on this list (I fully read every post). Therefore he
hasn't done anything which needs to be addressed regarding his
participation. However, each of you are acting inappropriately. Neither of
you are the final arbiter of what is valuable and/or appropriate for dialog
on this forum. And each of you has wandered into the space of inappropriate
discussion of a contributor here.

I enjoy Robert's posts. All of them. Yes, that includes the ones about
which each of you are complaining. Just because you do not value them
doesn't mean I don't value them. And, I also know there are others who ALSO
value Robert's posts. All of them.

As was said in an earlier reply, your email has a simple filtering
function. If you do not like a particular person's posts to this email
list, simply add their email to your list of blocked/ignored so it goes to
your spam or trash buckets and you never see it. IOW, please take
responsibility for your character and behavior and refrain from posting
non-Go related diatribes ESPECIALLY about other participating members.


Respectfully,

Jim O'Flaherty


On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:42 AM,  wrote:

> On 2017-10-23 at 23:56, Thomas Rohde  wrote:
>
> > On 2017-10-23 at 19:15, Xavier Combelle 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Robert Jasiek,
> > >
> > > you might have a delusional way to see the game of go and life,
> >
> > this is quite an insult
>
> Do you consider Robert's style of discussion "kind"? I for my part do not.
>
> I'm not saying that Robert's research in the area of Go corner cases
> doesn't have any value, it certainly has. One probably needs a certain kind
> of dedication to do it. But trying to bend every topic into this area is
> more often than not uncalled for.
>
> I don't know what it is. Maybe it's a certain kind of arrogance, resulting
> from the fact of knowing more than anybody else about a certain area in Go.
> But in the end it doesn't matter what it is, we all have our faults. What
> matters is that I very seldom saw a discussion with Robert lead to anything.
>
> David
>
>
> ___
> 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 24.10.2017 11:45, David Ongaro wrote:

very seldom saw a discussion with Robert lead to anything.


(You seem to only refer to discussion on this mailing list.)

Apart from this being a discussion about one particular person, let me 
ignore this for a moment:


In the current time, computer-go discussion and research has a very high 
percentage of people discussing the side of mainly programs and 
programming but I belong to the very low percentage of people discussing 
mainly go-theoretical aspects of computer-go. With a higher percentage 
of the latter, there would also be more discussions resulting to something.


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[david . ongaro]

On 2017-10-23 at 23:56, Thomas Rohde  wrote:
> On 2017-10-23 at 19:15, Xavier Combelle  wrote:
>
> > Hi Robert Jasiek,
> > 
> > you might have a delusional way to see the game of go and life,
> 
> this is quite an insult
Do you consider Robert's style of discussion "kind"? I for my part do
not.

I'm not saying that Robert's research in the area of Go corner cases
doesn't have any value, it certainly has. One probably needs a certain
kind of dedication to do it. But trying to bend every topic into this
area is more often than not uncalled for.

I don't know what it is. Maybe it's a certain kind of arrogance,
resulting from the fact of knowing more than anybody else about a
certain area in Go. But in the end it doesn't matter what it is, we
all have our faults. What matters is that I very seldom saw a
discussion with Robert lead to anything.

David

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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 23.10.2017 19:15, Xavier Combelle wrote:

[personal attack deleted]
Did you already encounter a real game with "disturbing life kos or
anti-sekis" and especially "ladders (...) beyond 250 moves" ? If not how
do you believe that Alphago would learn how to manage such situations.


Dave Dyer wrote:

I wonder how alphago-0 treats the menagerie of special positions, such as
bent 4 in the corner, thousand year ko, rotating ko, etc.


uurtamo wrote:
> It will be interesting to realize that those specialized positions
> (thousand-year-ko, bent 4) are actually a microscopic issue in
> game-winning.

The exceptional cases may be rarities in practical play but not all are 
that rare. E.g., I have had two games in roughly 40,000 ending with a 
double ko seki. Already one "rarity" occurring occasionally means that 
all rarities occur more often in practice. Therefore they do have 
practical relevance. Quite like a white truck is relevant and not to be 
confused with the sky, or an AI car can kill (which has happened because 
of such a "rarity"). In go, the consequences or misjudging "rarities" 
are just up a lost game, but this is the very purpose - avoiding lost 
games by avoiding errors. Rarities are good test samples for checking 
whether an AI program avoids errors in non-standard situations.


The same must be studied for standard situations, whose deeper details 
can also lead to errors. Not because a standard by itself would be 
difficult but because the deeper details increase complexity and this 
can lead to errors. Studying the standards and identifying errors in 
their deeper details can be difficult. E.g., we see AlphaGo (Zero) 
invading and living in a large moyo or not invading and wonder why. Part 
of the answer would be: invading and living is impossible. Studying this 
is complex because it involves deep reading for the standard case of a 
moyo and the question of invading it.


The "rarities" are infrequent but can be good test tools because 
distinguishing correct from wrong play can be easy if a rarity's 
behaviour is understood well. The standards are frequent but often not 
the best test tools because many standards interact with each other and 
they all depend on deep reading and exact positional judgement.


I cannot know if AlphaGo Zero has already learnt how to play in (some) 
rarities (those that can be solved earlier than the constant game end 
rule; e.g., we cannot test 4 octuple kos), will learn it or would not be 
able to learn it - but I want to know. In particular, because I want to 
know which errors AlphaGo Zero does make.


I want to know this for go and for the general AI project. Avoiding 
errors is essential for both. I do not fall into the illusion that 
AlphaGo Zero would be the perfect player but expect that it can make 
errors at any (unexpected) time. We need to understand what causes 
errors, how frequent they are and what most extreme consequences they 
can have. Rarities are one very good study tool for this purpose.


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Thomas Rohde]

On 2017-10-23 at 19:15, Xavier Combelle  wrote:

> Hi Robert Jasiek,
> 
> you might have a delusional way to see the game of go and life,

this is quite an insult, IMO, and I’d prefer not to read such personal attacks 
in this list. What about staying on-topic? 


> but I would love that you would not pollute my mailbox with such a delusional 
> vision.

May I suggest that you simply create a frigin’ filter? Also, you always have 
the liberty to hit the delete or backspace key, I’m sure you know where on your 
keyboard they are ;-)


> I'm certain that a lot of person of this mailing list and other forums share 
> my view.

FTR: Not me.


> To sum up, I would be pleased and I'm quite certain others too that you 
> consider seriously behave more like others persons.

LOL, “like other persons” :-D
What a boring list this would be if everybody would be “like other persons”.


Respectfully,

Tom


Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss 
people.
— Eleanor Roosevelt (though the authorship is disputed)


-- 
Thomas Rohde
Wiesenkamp 12, 29646 Bispingen, GERMANY
--
t...@bonobo.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Jim O'Flaherty]

If you wanted to do research on a specific joseki to see if AG0 found
weaknesses or explored alternatives, especially in games past day 3 (when
it began besting AGM), it would be quite interesting to see, through that
explicit filter, what kinds of things emerged around that specific joseki.
You might even discover that the joseki has weaknesses in several early
branches which haven't been found by humans in hundreds of years of using
the joseki.

Another angle is pretty much every game from AG0 day 4 forward would be
superior to the 100,000 games of the pro players upon which AGM was
trained. IOW, that is a huge number of games that exceed the very best
human-vs-human games quality and would be quite superior to seeding with
those human (biased) games for any other engine playing in the area.

Or, someone training a net, could walk up the 29 million games and explore
how their engine differs, make adjustments and explore climbing higher.
This data set enables "higher" in a totally different way than any prior
data set.

The number and variety of things that could be explored with the 29 million
games boggles the mind. I am deeply hopeful they do some form of simple
compressed dump of it somewhere. Then, it would be just a matter of getting
it loaded into a DB to create all sorts of indexes, queries, novel subsets,
etc.


Namaste,

Jim O'Flaherty
Founder/CEO
Precision Location Intelligence, Inc.
 • Irving, TX, USA
469-358-0633 <4693580633> • jim.oflaherty...@gmail.com •
www.linkedin.com/in/jimoflahertyjr

CONFIDENTIALITY / PROPRIETARY NOTICE:
The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is
confidential information for Precision Location Intelligence, Inc.. As
such, it may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or if you
received this message in error, then any direct or indirect disclosure,
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify Precision Location
Intelligence, Inc. by calling (214) 489-7779 <2144897779> immediately and
by sending a return e-mail; delete this message; and destroy all copies,
including attachments.

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Petri Pitkanen 
wrote:

> If the AG got better by playing against itself rather than training on
> previous good players then I do not thing training data is that important.
> Perhaps it is but google has shown that actually u dont need it. Just loads
> of processing will do the trick.
>
>
>
> 2017-10-23 15:05 GMT+03:00 Jim O'Flaherty :
>
>> Couldn't they be useful as part of a set of training data for newly
>> trained engines and networks?
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2017 2:34 AM, "Petri Pitkanen" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They are free to use in any attribution. Game score is a reflection of
>>> historical fact and hence not copyrightable. Dunno what use them are to
>>> anyone though.
>>>
>>> Petri
>>>
>>> 2017-10-23 2:29 GMT+03:00 Lucas Baker :
>>>
 Hi Robert,

 The AlphaGo Zero games are free to use with proper attribution, so
 please use them as you like for commentaries as long as you credit 
 DeepMind.

 Best,
 Lucas Baker

 On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:59 PM Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> AlphaGo Zero games are available as zipped SGF from Deepmind at
> http://www.alphago-games.com/ For earlier AlphaGo games, I have seen
> statements from Deepmind encouraging free use (presuming stating
> origin,
> of course) so that the games may be commented etc. I cannot find a
> similar statement from Deepmind for the published AlphaGo Zero games.
> Are they for free use or copyrighted? I hope the former so everybody
> including Deepmind can see more commentaries.
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> 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 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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Xavier Combelle]

Hi Robert Jasiek,

you might have a delusional way to see the game of go and life, but I
would love that you would not pollute
my mailbox with such a delusional vision. I'm certain that a lot of
person of this mailing list and other forums share my view.

To sum up, I would be pleased and I'm quite certain others too that you
consider seriously behave more like others persons.

Did you already encounter a real game with "disturbing life kos or
anti-sekis" and especially "ladders (...) beyond 250 moves" ? If not how
do you believe that Alphago would learn how to manage such situations.

Xavier Combelle

Le 23/10/2017 à 16:35, Robert Jasiek a écrit :
> On 23.10.2017 14:05, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:
>> Couldn't they be useful as part of a set of training data for newly
>> trained
>> engines and networks?
>
> All the millions of games would be very useful for many purposes.
> E.g., I want to know whether the reconstructed knowledge includes such
> basic things as terminal positions with disturbing life kos or
> anti-sekis, whether ladders are recognised beyond 250 moves etc. Not
> to mention non-go applications.
>


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Petri Pitkanen]

If the AG got better by playing against itself rather than training on
previous good players then I do not thing training data is that important.
Perhaps it is but google has shown that actually u dont need it. Just loads
of processing will do the trick.



2017-10-23 15:05 GMT+03:00 Jim O'Flaherty :

> Couldn't they be useful as part of a set of training data for newly
> trained engines and networks?
>
> On Oct 23, 2017 2:34 AM, "Petri Pitkanen" 
> wrote:
>
>> They are free to use in any attribution. Game score is a reflection of
>> historical fact and hence not copyrightable. Dunno what use them are to
>> anyone though.
>>
>> Petri
>>
>> 2017-10-23 2:29 GMT+03:00 Lucas Baker :
>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> The AlphaGo Zero games are free to use with proper attribution, so
>>> please use them as you like for commentaries as long as you credit DeepMind.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Lucas Baker
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:59 PM Robert Jasiek  wrote:
>>>
 AlphaGo Zero games are available as zipped SGF from Deepmind at
 http://www.alphago-games.com/ For earlier AlphaGo games, I have seen
 statements from Deepmind encouraging free use (presuming stating origin,
 of course) so that the games may be commented etc. I cannot find a
 similar statement from Deepmind for the published AlphaGo Zero games.
 Are they for free use or copyrighted? I hope the former so everybody
 including Deepmind can see more commentaries.

 --
 robert jasiek
 ___
 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 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 23.10.2017 14:05, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:

Couldn't they be useful as part of a set of training data for newly trained
engines and networks?


All the millions of games would be very useful for many purposes. E.g., 
I want to know whether the reconstructed knowledge includes such basic 
things as terminal positions with disturbing life kos or anti-sekis, 
whether ladders are recognised beyond 250 moves etc. Not to mention 
non-go applications.


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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Álvaro Begué]

No, they are too few games for that.



On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Jim O'Flaherty 
wrote:

> Couldn't they be useful as part of a set of training data for newly
> trained engines and networks?
>
> On Oct 23, 2017 2:34 AM, "Petri Pitkanen" 
> wrote:
>
>> They are free to use in any attribution. Game score is a reflection of
>> historical fact and hence not copyrightable. Dunno what use them are to
>> anyone though.
>>
>> Petri
>>
>> 2017-10-23 2:29 GMT+03:00 Lucas Baker :
>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> The AlphaGo Zero games are free to use with proper attribution, so
>>> please use them as you like for commentaries as long as you credit DeepMind.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Lucas Baker
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:59 PM Robert Jasiek  wrote:
>>>
 AlphaGo Zero games are available as zipped SGF from Deepmind at
 http://www.alphago-games.com/ For earlier AlphaGo games, I have seen
 statements from Deepmind encouraging free use (presuming stating origin,
 of course) so that the games may be commented etc. I cannot find a
 similar statement from Deepmind for the published AlphaGo Zero games.
 Are they for free use or copyrighted? I hope the former so everybody
 including Deepmind can see more commentaries.

 --
 robert jasiek
 ___
 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 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Jim O'Flaherty]

Couldn't they be useful as part of a set of training data for newly trained
engines and networks?

On Oct 23, 2017 2:34 AM, "Petri Pitkanen" 
wrote:

> They are free to use in any attribution. Game score is a reflection of
> historical fact and hence not copyrightable. Dunno what use them are to
> anyone though.
>
> Petri
>
> 2017-10-23 2:29 GMT+03:00 Lucas Baker :
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> The AlphaGo Zero games are free to use with proper attribution, so please
>> use them as you like for commentaries as long as you credit DeepMind.
>>
>> Best,
>> Lucas Baker
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:59 PM Robert Jasiek  wrote:
>>
>>> AlphaGo Zero games are available as zipped SGF from Deepmind at
>>> http://www.alphago-games.com/ For earlier AlphaGo games, I have seen
>>> statements from Deepmind encouraging free use (presuming stating origin,
>>> of course) so that the games may be commented etc. I cannot find a
>>> similar statement from Deepmind for the published AlphaGo Zero games.
>>> Are they for free use or copyrighted? I hope the former so everybody
>>> including Deepmind can see more commentaries.
>>>
>>> --
>>> robert jasiek
>>> ___
>>> 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 mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Ingo Althöfer]

"Petri Pitkanen"  wrot:
>  They are free to use in any attribution. Game score is a reflection of 
> historical fact and hence not copyrightable. 


"reflection of historical fact" concerns games that were played
in public. Over the decades, there were several investigations
(and even Master theses) concerning copyright issues on chess
master games, played in public tournaments. In all cases (known to me) 
the conclusion was "they are free to use".

The case with private games (like in this case those of AG-0)
was not discussed.

Just my 2 Cent, Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Petri Pitkanen]

They are free to use in any attribution. Game score is a reflection of
historical fact and hence not copyrightable. Dunno what use them are to
anyone though.

Petri

2017-10-23 2:29 GMT+03:00 Lucas Baker :

> Hi Robert,
>
> The AlphaGo Zero games are free to use with proper attribution, so please
> use them as you like for commentaries as long as you credit DeepMind.
>
> Best,
> Lucas Baker
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:59 PM Robert Jasiek  wrote:
>
>> AlphaGo Zero games are available as zipped SGF from Deepmind at
>> http://www.alphago-games.com/ For earlier AlphaGo games, I have seen
>> statements from Deepmind encouraging free use (presuming stating origin,
>> of course) so that the games may be commented etc. I cannot find a
>> similar statement from Deepmind for the published AlphaGo Zero games.
>> Are they for free use or copyrighted? I hope the former so everybody
>> including Deepmind can see more commentaries.
>>
>> --
>> robert jasiek
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Aja Huang]

2017-10-23 0:29 GMT+01:00 Lucas Baker :

> Hi Robert,
>
> The AlphaGo Zero games are free to use with proper attribution, so please
> use them as you like for commentaries as long as you credit DeepMind.
>

Yes, Lucas is right. We hope you enjoy AlphaGo Zero games. :)

Best regards,
Aja



> Best,
> Lucas Baker
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:59 PM Robert Jasiek  wrote:
>
>> AlphaGo Zero games are available as zipped SGF from Deepmind at
>> http://www.alphago-games.com/ For earlier AlphaGo games, I have seen
>> statements from Deepmind encouraging free use (presuming stating origin,
>> of course) so that the games may be commented etc. I cannot find a
>> similar statement from Deepmind for the published AlphaGo Zero games.
>> Are they for free use or copyrighted? I hope the former so everybody
>> including Deepmind can see more commentaries.
>>
>> --
>> robert jasiek
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Lucas Baker]

Hi Robert,

The AlphaGo Zero games are free to use with proper attribution, so please
use them as you like for commentaries as long as you credit DeepMind.

Best,
Lucas Baker

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:59 PM Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> AlphaGo Zero games are available as zipped SGF from Deepmind at
> http://www.alphago-games.com/ For earlier AlphaGo games, I have seen
> statements from Deepmind encouraging free use (presuming stating origin,
> of course) so that the games may be commented etc. I cannot find a
> similar statement from Deepmind for the published AlphaGo Zero games.
> Are they for free use or copyrighted? I hope the former so everybody
> including Deepmind can see more commentaries.
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> 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] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

AlphaGo Zero games are available as zipped SGF from Deepmind at 
http://www.alphago-games.com/ For earlier AlphaGo games, I have seen 
statements from Deepmind encouraging free use (presuming stating origin, 
of course) so that the games may be commented etc. I cannot find a 
similar statement from Deepmind for the published AlphaGo Zero games. 
Are they for free use or copyrighted? I hope the former so everybody 
including Deepmind can see more commentaries.


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