Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi Erik,

> The most important skill in this game might be in how accurately 
> you can throw your frisbee. Why take that out? 
>
> Build real robots!

agreed, but one step after the other.

My tentative time table looks like follows (joking):

2016  Frisbee Go simulation in the Computer Olympiad (in Leiden)
2017  Frisbee Go simulations in the Computer Olympiad (with subdivisions for 
different move distributions)
2022  First Robot Competition (7x7 Go) of Frisbee Go in the Computer Olympiad
2025  Renaming the ICGA to IC(G+R)A: we should also host Robot table tennis and 
other games

;-)


Back to reality (no joke): Some of you may remember the nice location in Leiden 
from 2015.
In particular we had a grass area, sort of atrium.
I will bring with me 81 frisbees (40 in White, 41 in a surprise color)
for Frisbee Go as a human entertainment, and a net for the 9x9 board.

Ingo.





Erik
 
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:42 PM, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> 
wrote:Dear John, Dear Nick, Dear all,

> > ...
> > Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care
> > which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with probability
> > (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able to do
> > better by aiming midway between them.
>
> But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points.
> Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there.
>
> There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go,
> so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence...

John is exactly argumenting in my direction.
Keep the rules set as simple as possible.

Once a stable Frisbee Go simulation scene is established, people
may build subscenes if they want. And of course, once Frisbee robot Go
will be played in real, programmers will look at all possible tricks.

Regards, Ingo.

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org[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[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] Frisbee Go

[Erik van der Werf]

The most important skill in this game might be in how accurately you can
throw your frisbee. Why take that out? Build real robots!

;-)
Erik

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:42 PM, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de>
wrote:

> Dear John, Dear Nick, Dear all,
>
> > > ...
> > > Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't
> care
> > > which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with
> probability
> > > (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able
> to do
> > > better by aiming midway between them.
> >
> > But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points.
> > Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there.
> >
> > There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go,
> > so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence...
>
> John is exactly argumenting in my direction.
> Keep the rules set as simple as possible.
>
> Once a stable Frisbee Go simulation scene is established, people
> may build subscenes if they want. And of course, once Frisbee robot Go
> will be played in real, programmers will look at all possible tricks.
>
> Regards, Ingo.
> ___
> 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] Frisbee Go

[Ingo Althöfer]

Dear John, Dear Nick, Dear all,

> > ...
> > Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care
> > which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with probability
> > (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able to do
> > better by aiming midway between them.
> 
> But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points.
> Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there.
>
> There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go,
> so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence...

John is exactly argumenting in my direction.
Keep the rules set as simple as possible.

Once a stable Frisbee Go simulation scene is established, people
may build subscenes if they want. And of course, once Frisbee robot Go
will be played in real, programmers will look at all possible tricks.

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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go

[Álvaro Begué]

You could express the intended move as a pair of real numbers. A random
offset is then added, following some probability distribution (Gaussian, or
uniform in a disk of a certain radius, or ...), and then the result is
rounded to the nearest point of integer coordinates. What possibilities
does this not cover?

I like the idea of using Gaussian noise and handicapping games by assigning
a larger variance to the stronger player. :)

Álvaro.



On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:27 AM, John Tromp  wrote:

> dear Nick,
>
> > There's an assumption implicitly made here, which does not accord with my
> > experience of frisbee Go: that the player will always aim at an
> > intersection.
> >
> > Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care
> > which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with
> probability
> > (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able
> to do
> > better by aiming midway between them.
>
> But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points.
> Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there.
>
> There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go,
> so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence...
>
> regards,
> -John
> ___
> 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] Frisbee Go

[John Tromp]

dear Nick,

> There's an assumption implicitly made here, which does not accord with my
> experience of frisbee Go: that the player will always aim at an
> intersection.
>
> Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care
> which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with probability
> (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able to do
> better by aiming midway between them.

But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points.
Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there.

There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go,
so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence...

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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go

[Nick Wedd]

There's an assumption implicitly made here, which does not accord with my
experience of frisbee Go: that the player will always aim at an
intersection.

Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care
which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with
probability (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to
be able to do better by aiming midway between them.

Nick

On 21 February 2016 at 00:09, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Has a consensus been reached about the rules/GTP modifications for
> frisbee Go? I assume a genmove turns into a genmove_reg+play, but:
>
> 1. What happens with plays unintentionally on top of stones or out of
> bounds?
> 1.1 If converted to passes, do they count towards end of play and
> scoring phase?
> 2. How are the play probabilities distributed?
>
> I don't remember this being settled, but maybe I've missed it.
>
> Gonçalo
>
>
> PS: Late congratulations to Silver, Huang et al, and John Tromp.
> PPS: My money is still on Lee Sedol.
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go




-- 
Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi all,


> I don't remember if there was consensus, but can repeat my previous thoughts:
> 
> > 1. What happens with plays unintentionally on top of stones or out of
> > bounds?
> 
> Converted to involuntary pass.

Agree.

> Note that a throw must have some positive probability of converting into
> a legal move. This way, infinitely long games have 0 probability.

Agree. At least one of the 1+4 target squares has to allow placing a stone 
there.
 
> > 1.1 If converted to passes, do they count towards end of play and
> > scoring phase?
> 
> No; only voluntary passes should. Otherwise games would most
> likely end prematurely.

Agree.

> > 2. How are the play probabilities distributed?
> 
> They're governed by a single parameter, the hit probability p.
> You hit the target with prob. p, and its 4 neighbours with probability 
> (1-p)/4.
> 
> I don't believe there's a single value of p that everyone likes best.
> 
> One extreme p=1 is classical Go. The other extreme p=0 is guaranteed
> to miss the target. Other natural choices are p=1/2 or p=1/5.
> (Values in 1/2 < p < 1 seem a little dull to me).

I would prefer p=0.5.
And agreed again: p should not be too large.


I will be in Leiden and am willing to operate one of the 
programs in Frisbee Go simulation. One of my students will
likely also be there - and I will "motivate" him to operate another
program in the competition.

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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go

[Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira]

I don't like it very much, simply selecting only from the valid
neighbors would simplify the rules and shorten the game, but I guess
maybe it does seem similar to what would happen in real life. Are there
other games played with frisbees?

Anyways I propose a frisbee-probability GTP command, it is the bare
minimum to play this:

frisbee-probability (optional)
arguments float - Value between 0 and 1
effects   Change the active probability of playing intended
intersection.
outputnone
fails syntax error - fails if out of range probability value (<
0 or > 1); unable to change - fails if invoked in the middle of the game
comments  Programs that only support probability 1.0 should not
include this command in their list_commands output.

Sounds about right? It should be the only change necessary for GTP to
start supporting the frisbee.

Gonçalo




On 21/02/2016 01:18, John Tromp wrote:
> I don't remember if there was consensus, but can repeat my previous thoughts:
> 
>> 1. What happens with plays unintentionally on top of stones or out of
>> bounds?
> 
> Converted to involuntary pass.
> Note that a throw must have some positive probability of converting into
> a legal move. This way, infinitely long games have 0 probability.
> 
>> 1.1 If converted to passes, do they count towards end of play and
>> scoring phase?
> 
> No; only voluntary passes should. Otherwise games would most
> likely end prematurely.
> 
>> 2. How are the play probabilities distributed?
> 
> They're governed by a single parameter, the hit probability p.
> You hit the target with prob. p, and its 4 neighbours with probability 
> (1-p)/4.
> 
> I don't believe there's a single value of p that everyone likes best.
> 
> One extreme p=1 is classical Go. The other extreme p=0 is guaranteed
> to miss the target. Other natural choices are p=1/2 or p=1/5.
> (Values in 1/2 < p < 1 seem a little dull to me).
> 
> regards,
> -John
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go

[John Tromp]

I don't remember if there was consensus, but can repeat my previous thoughts:

> 1. What happens with plays unintentionally on top of stones or out of
> bounds?

Converted to involuntary pass.
Note that a throw must have some positive probability of converting into
a legal move. This way, infinitely long games have 0 probability.

> 1.1 If converted to passes, do they count towards end of play and
> scoring phase?

No; only voluntary passes should. Otherwise games would most
likely end prematurely.

> 2. How are the play probabilities distributed?

They're governed by a single parameter, the hit probability p.
You hit the target with prob. p, and its 4 neighbours with probability (1-p)/4.

I don't believe there's a single value of p that everyone likes best.

One extreme p=1 is classical Go. The other extreme p=0 is guaranteed
to miss the target. Other natural choices are p=1/2 or p=1/5.
(Values in 1/2 < p < 1 seem a little dull to me).

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

[Computer-go] Frisbee Go

[Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira]

Hello all,

Has a consensus been reached about the rules/GTP modifications for
frisbee Go? I assume a genmove turns into a genmove_reg+play, but:

1. What happens with plays unintentionally on top of stones or out of
bounds?
1.1 If converted to passes, do they count towards end of play and
scoring phase?
2. How are the play probabilities distributed?

I don't remember this being settled, but maybe I've missed it.

Gonçalo


PS: Late congratulations to Silver, Huang et al, and John Tromp.
PPS: My money is still on Lee Sedol.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[robertfinkng...@o2.co.uk]

Hi Ingo,

Thanks, yes I see it is good to keep it simple to begin with, not least, 
to encourage entrants that it is not a big hurdle.


Due to the lack of definite answer to "what epsilon?" the core idea was 
simply that if you keep epsilon small, then the restriction you made 
about only displacing by one, and no diagonal displacement, would not be 
inconsistent with the real world. On the other hand, a large epsilon 
would be an immediate deviation from real frisbee go (given the 
displacement restriction). Also, I suspect that if epsilon is large the 
skill in the game will be much lower than if it is zero, but somewhere 
inbetween, maybe there will be an epsilon that requires more skill than 
either extreme. It am a fairly weak player, but it seems to me that the 
tactical side of the game is vital and would easily be lost.  I can see 
that if the tournament is 9x9,0.017 does seem too small; having only a 
75% chance of a miss once per game may be a bit pointless!


Anyway, it was just a thought. It's great to see that David has a 
version of Many Faces that will play - all the best with the tournament.


Regards

Raffles

On 19-Nov-15 13:25, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote:

Hello Raffles,
  

... Since this is based on a real world variant of Go, why not base epsilon on 
that? ...


In "true Frisbee Go" many more aspects may be taken into account:

* During the first moves one may learn how good the throwing skills of the 
opponent are...

* weather (and wind) may play a role in outdoor play

* a player may deliberately throw weakly in the beginning to
lead the opponent to wrong conclusions

* players may be allowed to use "moving robots" who can
change the place from where they throw

...

The Frisbee Go Simulation is meant to leave all these
sophistications outside (at least in 2016).

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

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11042 - Release Date: 11/21/15


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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi Josef,
 

> ... I think that we do not need to ensure that the stone cannot land 
> diagonally 
> by small epsilon, since ingo defined it s.t. it cannot. 

Exactly. "Frisbee Go Simulation" is not meant a realistic simuilation of
true Frisbee Go, but as an abstract testbed for a Go variant with random 
elements.

> Having small epsilon as you suggest makes any attempts at writing a 
> specialized 
> frisbee-go code not really fruitful, since the displacement is quite rare; so 
> realistically, with small epsilon, no-one would probably bother to do 
> anything 
> different than to run current programs unchanged.

Right. In particular, the idea is to play on 9x9 board in the Olympiad 2016.


> ... Moreover, larger epsilons change the game's dynamic s.t. it is easier to 
> live 
> and harder to kill (hypothesis). Another thing is that the MCTS might work 
> much 
> better with this setting (since random playouts are much more true).

I want to challenge this. From other games with random elements (for instance
"EinStein wurfelt nicht") it is known that specialized algorithms are much
better than simple adaptions of MCTS. 

> ingo: One note for rules (you should add) is that when players throw stone 
> to a location where the probability of landing on a valid location is exactly 
> zero (all 5 positions are stones or invalid) this counts as a pass 
> (otw, the loosing party might play the "non-voluntary pass" moves and make 
> the game infinite. (sorry if I overlooked someone mentioning this already) ...

SUch problems were the reason for my original formulation: not differentiating
between intended and unintended passes. Stop of phase 1 after two consecutive
passes. Completion of the game in normal Go mode in phase 2.

*
By the way. Michael Hartisch (from the Ulf Lorenz group at Siegen U) proposed
to have in the Olympiad one "Frisbee Go Simulation" participant which is a
normal Go bot. This bot will likely not win a medal, but its performance may
show how different (and difficult) Frisbee Go Simulation is from normal Go.


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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hello Raffles,
 
> ... Since this is based on a real world variant of Go, why not base epsilon 
> on that? ...


In "true Frisbee Go" many more aspects may be taken into account:

* During the first moves one may learn how good the throwing skills of the 
opponent are...

* weather (and wind) may play a role in outdoor play

* a player may deliberately throw weakly in the beginning to
lead the opponent to wrong conclusions 

* players may be allowed to use "moving robots" who can
change the place from where they throw

...

The Frisbee Go Simulation is meant to leave all these
sophistications outside (at least in 2016).

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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[robertfinkng...@o2.co.uk]

  
  
If this catches on, perhaps the rules will be referred to as the
  Ingo rules ;-)
  
  Since this is based on a real world variant of Go, why not base
  epsilon on that? The fact that the limit of displacement from the
  intended position is limited to the immediately adjacent points,
  suggests that the thrower is pretty accurate. The distribution is
  narrow enough that the chance of going further afield is
  (effectively) zero. Therefore epsilon should be pretty tiny. It
  must be large enough that there is a chance of the frisbee being
  at least 50% over the line (i.e. epsilon > 0), but small enough
  that the chance of it going 70.7% over the line is vanishingly
  small (otherwise we would be allowing it to be displaced onto the
  diagonally adjacent positions).
  
  Assuming a Gaussian distribution (probably not true for frisbees
  but it will do) and assuming 3 standard deviations away is close
  enough to "vanishingly small", we have 3.sigma = 0.7071...
  (sqrt(0.5)), sigma = 0.2357 (sqrt(0.5)/3), tipping point for throw
  being >50% over the line t.sigma = 0.5, t = 0.5 / sigma =
  3.sqrt(0.5) = 2.12 => epsilon = 0.017, approximately 1 in 60.
  
  Looking at this from a purely combinatorial point of view,t we
  need 1/epsilon > number-of-moves-in-a-game but 1/epsilon^2
  << number-of-moves-in-a-game, which 0.017 seems to satisfy
  for all common board sizes.
  
  Hopefully such a small epsilon also avoids destroying the
  possibility of local tactical play but also introduces a new
  element to the game (75% chance of at least once displaced move in
  81 move game, over 99% chance of at least one displaced move in a
  361 move game).
  
  In fact to model the real world, epsilon ought to vary depending
  on the move. It should increase depending on distance from
  throwing position, and should not be equal for N,S,E and W
  displacement. Assuming standing south of the board, we expect
  epsilon N > S > E = W (range is normally harder to judge
  than direction and overthrows tend to be worse than under-throws).
  
  It seems to me this may bring in interesting elements to move
  choice - it may be better to play a weaker move which is closer
  and therefore more likely to be played successfully than a
  stronger move which is less likely to be played successfully.
  
  But perhaps this over complicates things - how does it work out
  with fixed epsilon around 0.017.
  
  Raffles
  

On 11-Nov-15 15:29, Álvaro Begué wrote:


  1/5 also seems natural (equal chance of hitting
each the 5 possible points).

Álvaro.


  
  
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:08 AM, John
  Tromp 
  wrote:
  > By the way: It would also be necessary to
  decide about
  > the eps for the event. Natural candidates would be
  > eps=0.1 or eps=0.125.
  
I would say the 2 most interesting choices are 1/8 or
1/4.
The latter guarantees you miss your aim by distance 1,
while the former gives you an even chance to hit it.

-John
  

  ___
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
  
  
  
  No virus
found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7163 / Virus Database: 4457/10958 - Release
Date: 11/06/15


  

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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[fotland]

Attached is a frisbee go game 9x9 between me and a Chines 5-dan
amateur.  50% chance of playing in the intended spot.  When a
connection is required, it is just up to chance who wins the fight.
 It's a little silly, but was a lot of fun to play.
 
David

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:13:51 +0100, "Ingo Althöfer"  wrote:

  Hmm.


>> Would the game end after two unintentional passes?

> Good point. In principle I would say so.

That makes little sense to me.
IMO, the principled rule is that two consecutive intentional passes
end the game.


We should have some test games to see how long a game would be
"typically" stretched by unintended passes.

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




frisbee.sgf
Description: application/go-sgf
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Josef Moudrik]

>
> (effectively) zero. Therefore epsilon should be pretty tiny. It must be
> large enough that there is a chance of the frisbee being at least 50% over
> the line (i.e. epsilon > 0), but small enough that the chance of it going
> 70.7% over the line is vanishingly small (otherwise we would be allowing it
> to be displaced onto the diagonally adjacent positions).
>

I do not understand, I think that we do not need to ensure that the stone
cannot land diagonally by small epsilon, since ingo defined it s.t. it
cannot. Having small epsilon as you suggest makes any attempts at writing a
specialized frisbee-go code not really fruitful, since the displacement is
quite rare; so realistically, with small epsilon, no-one would probably
bother to do anything different than to run current programs unchanged.

I think that frisbee-go is much interesting for larger epsilons - e.g. 1/8,
1/6 - because it has nontrivial strategical/tactical implications. For
instance, seki are no longer sekis in this setting, since the loosing party
can always improve its expected outcome by trying to be lucky, and
therefore the winning side can do the same (of course sometimes this is
quite like starting the "1 year ko"). Also when the game ends each dame
is essentially assigned "randomly", so under chinese rules score can
"change randomly". Moreover, larger epsilons change the game's dynamic s.t.
it is easier to live and harder to kill (hypothesis). Another thing is that
the MCTS might work much better with this setting (since random playouts
are much more true).

ingo: One note for rules (you should add) is that when players throw stone
to a location where the probability of landing on a valid location is
exactly zero (all 5 positions are stones or invalid) this counts as a pass
(otw, the loosing party might play the "non-voluntary pass" moves and make
the game infinite. (sorry if I overlooked someone mentioning this already)

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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi David,  hi all,

thanks for all the constructive feedback. I will reply later in detail.

We are in Berlin. When returning to the hotel shortly past midnight,  
the hungarian flag was at halfmast. Then we saw the terrible news
from Paris. Berlin is suffering vicariously with the people in Paris.
 
Ingo.


Gesendet: Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 04:55 Uhr
Von: fotl...@smart-games.com
An: computer-go@computer-go.org
Betreff: Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Attached is a frisbee go game 9x9 between me and a Chines 5-dan amateur.  50% 
chance of playing in the intended spot.  When a connection is required, it is 
just up to chance who wins the fight.  It's a little silly, but was a lot of 
fun to play.
 
David

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:13:51 +0100, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> 
wrote:
Hmm.


> >> Would the game end after two unintentional passes?
>
> > Good point. In principle I would say so.
>
> That makes little sense to me.
> IMO, the principled rule is that two consecutive intentional passes
> end the game.

We should have some test games to see how long a game would be
"typically" stretched by unintended passes.


Ingo.
___
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] Frisbee Go Simulation

[David Peters]

To keep changes to the protocol and number of parameters low, wouldn't it be a possibility to consider multiple 'throws' of a frisbee?

 

So if the engine decides to play a move you have the described arrangement of hitting adjactent fields with probability eps. If this results in a move outside the board or an illegal move, you just repeat until you get a legal move. This could even mean, that you could even use an existing engine without change. You just add the additional step generating the random noise on the moves.


 

Or is this orthogonal to the envisioned game?

 

Best regards,

David Peters

 


Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 10:24 Uhr
Von: "Darren Cook" <dar...@dcook.org>
An: computer-go@computer-go.org
Betreff: Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

> If one or two of these cells are outside the board the
> move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another
> stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted
> as pass moves.

Alternatively, the probability could be adjusted for the number of legal
moves. (E.g. taking the easy example of (1,1) on an empty board,and eps
of 0.2, you'd adjust (1,1), (2,1) and (1,2) to each be 1/3 probability).

This does away with the involuntary pass concept. (But if you keep it, I
agree with John Tromp that it is just a wasted move, not able to cause
early game termination.)

Darren

___
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] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Darren Cook]

> If one or two of these cells are outside the board the
> move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another
> stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted
> as pass moves. 

Alternatively, the probability could be adjusted for the number of legal
moves.  (E.g. taking the easy example of (1,1) on an empty board,and eps
of 0.2, you'd adjust (1,1), (2,1) and (1,2) to each be 1/3 probability).

This does away with the involuntary pass concept. (But if you keep it, I
agree with John Tromp that it is just a wasted move, not able to cause
early game termination.)

Darren

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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Álvaro Begué]

Normalizing the probabilities and re-throwing the frisbee until it lands in
a valid move are equivalent, of course.



On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:01 AM, David Peters <rodje...@web.de> wrote:

> To keep changes to the protocol and number of parameters low, wouldn't it
> be a possibility to consider multiple 'throws' of a frisbee?
>
> So if the engine decides to play a move you have the described arrangement
> of hitting adjactent fields with probability eps. If this results in a move
> outside the board or an illegal move, you just repeat until you get a legal
> move. This could even mean, that you could even use an existing engine
> without change. You just add the additional step generating the random
> noise on the moves.
>
> Or is this orthogonal to the envisioned game?
>
> Best regards,
> David Peters
>
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 10:24 Uhr
> *Von:* "Darren Cook" <dar...@dcook.org>
> *An:* computer-go@computer-go.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
> > If one or two of these cells are outside the board the
> > move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another
> > stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted
> > as pass moves.
>
> Alternatively, the probability could be adjusted for the number of legal
> moves. (E.g. taking the easy example of (1,1) on an empty board,and eps
> of 0.2, you'd adjust (1,1), (2,1) and (1,2) to each be 1/3 probability).
>
> This does away with the involuntary pass concept. (But if you keep it, I
> agree with John Tromp that it is just a wasted move, not able to cause
> early game termination.)
>
> Darren
>
> ___
> 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] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Nick Wedd]

I was thinking about the ko rule for frisbee ko, and realised it leads to
problems.

1.   Black takes a ko,  White tries to make a ko threat, but accidentally
retakes the ko.  What should happen?

2.   Black takes a ko.  White tries to make a ko threat, but fails to make
a valid move. Black tries to make connect the ko, but fails to make a valid
move. May White now (try to) retake the ko?

The solution is to get rid of all ko rules. You don't need them.

Nick

On 12 November 2015 at 11:19, Álvaro Begué <alvaro.be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Normalizing the probabilities and re-throwing the frisbee until it lands
> in a valid move are equivalent, of course.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:01 AM, David Peters <rodje...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> To keep changes to the protocol and number of parameters low, wouldn't it
>> be a possibility to consider multiple 'throws' of a frisbee?
>>
>> So if the engine decides to play a move you have the described
>> arrangement of hitting adjactent fields with probability eps. If this
>> results in a move outside the board or an illegal move, you just repeat
>> until you get a legal move. This could even mean, that you could even use
>> an existing engine without change. You just add the additional step
>> generating the random noise on the moves.
>>
>> Or is this orthogonal to the envisioned game?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> David Peters
>>
>> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 10:24 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Darren Cook" <dar...@dcook.org>
>> *An:* computer-go@computer-go.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
>> > If one or two of these cells are outside the board the
>> > move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another
>> > stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted
>> > as pass moves.
>>
>> Alternatively, the probability could be adjusted for the number of legal
>> moves. (E.g. taking the easy example of (1,1) on an empty board,and eps
>> of 0.2, you'd adjust (1,1), (2,1) and (1,2) to each be 1/3 probability).
>>
>> This does away with the involuntary pass concept. (But if you keep it, I
>> agree with John Tromp that it is just a wasted move, not able to cause
>> early game termination.)
>>
>> Darren
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 
Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[John Tromp]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Nick Wedd  wrote:
> I was thinking about the ko rule for frisbee ko, and realised it leads to
> problems.
>
> 1.   Black takes a ko,  White tries to make a ko threat, but accidentally
> retakes the ko.  What should happen?

This was already covered by having any illegal frisbee landing revert to a pass.
Btw, it's impossible to make a ko threat neighbouring a ko retake, as
all those points are occupied:(

> 2.   Black takes a ko.  White tries to make a ko threat, but fails to make a
> valid move. Black tries to make connect the ko, but fails to make a valid
> move. May White now (try to) retake the ko?

Being a superko fan myself, the answer is clear: not if it repeats the position.

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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[fotland]

Yesterday I modified Many Faces to play Frisbee go an played a few
games with some other people at the Beijing Computer go tournament.
 It's a very strange game.  If there is interest I can make an
installer and make it available for free.
 
Josef Moudrik is also writing a program.
 
David

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:29:50 -0500, John Tromp  wrote:

  On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Nick Wedd  wrote:

I was thinking about the ko rule for frisbee ko, and realised it leads to
problems.

1. Black takes a ko, White tries to make a ko threat, but accidentally
retakes the ko. What should happen?


This was already covered by having any illegal frisbee landing revert
to a pass.
Btw, it's impossible to make a ko threat neighbouring a ko retake, as
all those points are occupied:(


2. Black takes a ko. White tries to make a ko threat, but fails to make a
valid move. Black tries to make connect the ko, but fails to make a valid
move. May White now (try to) retake the ko?


Being a superko fan myself, the answer is clear: not if it repeats the
position.

regards,
-John
___
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] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hello,

the next Computer Olympiad has been dated.
It will take place in Leiden (NL), from June 27, 2016 to July 03, 2016.

I want to propose a new Go variant for 9x9 board: 
"Frisbee Go simulation"
Normal go rules apply. However, when a player wants to place a stone on
"cell" (i,j), the stone will land there only with probability (1- 4*eps).
With probability eps each it will land on (i-1,j) or (i+1,j) or (i-1,j-1)
or (i-1,j+1). If one or two of these cells are outside the board the
move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another
stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted
as pass moves. 

eps is the "uncertainty" level of the game.
Only values eps between 0 and 0.25 make sense. 
0 gives the standard go game. 

The relation tio "normal" Frisbee Go should be clear: The player wants
to throw the disk on cell (i,j) but with certain probability the
disk lands on one of the neighboring cells. 


Background of the proposal:
In the long run I want to see robots playing "robot frisbee go".
As a first step, the simulation shall help to develop good
game-theoretic programs for this discipline.


Of course, Frisbee Go Simulation will be played in the 2016 Olympiad
only if at least two programs are registered. So, may the programmers please
let me know if they are interested? Also all sorts of questions are welcome.

Cheers, Ingo.

PS. You may have a look at a picture, painted by Tanja Esser.
http://www.althofer.de/robot-play/frisbee-robot-go.jpg
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Arthur Cater]

Would the game end after two unintentional passes?

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Ingo Althöfer <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> the next Computer Olympiad has been dated.
> It will take place in Leiden (NL), from June 27, 2016 to July 03, 2016.
> 
> I want to propose a new Go variant for 9x9 board: 
> "Frisbee Go simulation"
> Normal go rules apply. However, when a player wants to place a stone on
> "cell" (i,j), the stone will land there only with probability (1- 4*eps).
> With probability eps each it will land on (i-1,j) or (i+1,j) or (i-1,j-1)
> or (i-1,j+1). If one or two of these cells are outside the board the
> move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another
> stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted
> as pass moves. 
> 
> eps is the "uncertainty" level of the game.
> Only values eps between 0 and 0.25 make sense. 
> 0 gives the standard go game. 
> 
> The relation tio "normal" Frisbee Go should be clear: The player wants
> to throw the disk on cell (i,j) but with certain probability the
> disk lands on one of the neighboring cells. 
> 
> 
> Background of the proposal:
> In the long run I want to see robots playing "robot frisbee go".
> As a first step, the simulation shall help to develop good
> game-theoretic programs for this discipline.
> 
> 
> Of course, Frisbee Go Simulation will be played in the 2016 Olympiad
> only if at least two programs are registered. So, may the programmers please
> let me know if they are interested? Also all sorts of questions are welcome.
> 
> Cheers, Ingo.
> 
> PS. You may have a look at a picture, painted by Tanja Esser.
> http://www.althofer.de/robot-play/frisbee-robot-go.jpg
> ___
> 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] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Álvaro Begué]

1/5 also seems natural (equal chance of hitting each the 5 possible points).

Álvaro.



On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:08 AM, John Tromp  wrote:

> > By the way: It would also be necessary to decide about
> > the eps for the event. Natural candidates would be
> > eps=0.1 or eps=0.125.
>
> I would say the 2 most interesting choices are 1/8 or 1/4.
> The latter guarantees you miss your aim by distance 1,
> while the former gives you an even chance to hit it.
>
> -John
> ___
> 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] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi David,
 
> I won't be able to be at the congress, 

participants need one person representing the bot at the event.
This need not to be the main programmer.

> but I think it would be pretty easy to modify MCTS to play this game.  

The crucial point will be playing strength.


> Do you plan to modify a gtp server to handle these rules?  

Uff. I am not a programmer. So some volunteer would have
to do this. 

Automatic or semi-automatic play would make sense, because of the
random elements in Frisbee Go Simulation there should be more than
single games between the participants. 

By the way: It would also be necessary to decide about
the eps for the event. Natural candidates would be
eps=0.1 or eps=0.125. 

> ... I could be persuaded to submit an entry.
 
Fine. Accept me in the team, and I may operate in Leiden.

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

Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Josef Moudrik]

Frisbee go sounds fun.
How do you plan to use the GTP protocol to support this? I think that the
randomization should be handled by the server, so the bot needs to get
feedback about the move actually carried out. So maybe
genmove + undo & play
or reg_genmove + play
depending on what do the bots support?

It should be fairly easy to modify gogui-twogtp to allow for this, and imo
if you want to promote the frisbee go, this should be done early, s.t.
there is platform for testing.


Regards,
Josef M.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:15 PM "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de>
wrote:

> > Oh! You can have a continuous handicap control by giving the players
> different epsilons. :)
>
>
> Right. You have "the same" in human-played Frisbee Go by having arbitrary
> distances from which the players have to throw their frisbees. (You may
> even change the distance during the game )
>
> Ingo.
>
> ___
> 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] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Ingo Althöfer]

> Would the game end after two unintentional passes?

Good point. In principle I would say so.
To avoid problems with final counting, after 2 passes the game should
be completed in traditional mode (without Frisbee simulation elements).

One might say that such a final should be executed only after
4 (unintentional) passes but I see the problem when playing
on a "normal" server.

Ingo.



 
> > On Nov 11, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Ingo Althöfer <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > the next Computer Olympiad has been dated.
> > It will take place in Leiden (NL), from June 27, 2016 to July 03, 2016.
> > 
> > I want to propose a new Go variant for 9x9 board: 
> > "Frisbee Go simulation"
> > Normal go rules apply. However, when a player wants to place a stone on
> > "cell" (i,j), the stone will land there only with probability (1- 4*eps).
> > With probability eps each it will land on (i-1,j) or (i+1,j) or (i-1,j-1)
> > or (i-1,j+1). If one or two of these cells are outside the board the
> > move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another
> > stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted
> > as pass moves. 
> > 
> > eps is the "uncertainty" level of the game.
> > Only values eps between 0 and 0.25 make sense. 
> > 0 gives the standard go game. 
> > 
> > The relation tio "normal" Frisbee Go should be clear: The player wants
> > to throw the disk on cell (i,j) but with certain probability the
> > disk lands on one of the neighboring cells. 
> > 
> > 
> > Background of the proposal:
> > In the long run I want to see robots playing "robot frisbee go".
> > As a first step, the simulation shall help to develop good
> > game-theoretic programs for this discipline.
> > 
> > 
> > Of course, Frisbee Go Simulation will be played in the 2016 Olympiad
> > only if at least two programs are registered. So, may the programmers please
> > let me know if they are interested? Also all sorts of questions are welcome.
> > 
> > Cheers, Ingo.
> > 
> > PS. You may have a look at a picture, painted by Tanja Esser.
> > http://www.althofer.de/robot-play/frisbee-robot-go.jpg
> > ___
> > 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] Frisbee Go Simulation

[fotland]

I was thinking reg_genmove.  Make the bot support one way to do it to
make the referee simpler.
 
David

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 03:22:23 +, Josef Moudrik  wrote:

  Frisbee go sounds fun.How do you plan to use the GTP protocol to
support this? I think that the randomization should be handled by the
server, so the bot needs to get feedback about the move actually
carried out. So maybe
genmove + undo & play
or reg_genmove + play
depending on what do the bots support?
 
It should be fairly easy to modify gogui-twogtp to allow for this, and
imo if you want to promote the frisbee go, this should be done early,
s.t. there is platform for testing.
 
 
Regards,
Josef M.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:15 PM "Ingo Althöfer"  wrote:

  > Oh! You can have a continuous handicap control by giving the
players different epsilons. :)

Right. You have "the same" in human-played Frisbee Go by having arbitrary
distances from which the players have to throw their frisbees. (You may
even change the distance during the game )

Ingo. 
 
___
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] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Álvaro Begué]

Oh! You can have a continuous handicap control by giving the players
different epsilons. :)



On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:25 PM, John Tromp  wrote:

> >> Would the game end after two unintentional passes?
>
> > Good point. In principle I would say so.
>
> That makes little sense to me.
> IMO, the principled rule is that two consecutive intentional passes
> end the game.
>
> To make sure that infinitely long games have 0 probability,
> we must then require that
>   the frisbee aim itself be a legal move (if eps < 1/4)
> or, in case eps=1/4, that
>   at least one of its neighbours be a legal move
>
> -John
> ___
> 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] Frisbee Go Simulation

[Ingo Althöfer]

> Oh! You can have a continuous handicap control by giving the players 
> different epsilons. :)


Right. You have "the same" in human-played Frisbee Go by having arbitrary
distances from which the players have to throw their frisbees. (You may 
even change the distance during the game )

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