Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
Christoph Birk wrote: I don't think 2200 ELO on the 9x9 CGOS is equivalent to 'high dan-level' play. Neither do I. In fact the whole kyu/dan rating system applies only to 19x19. 9x9 is not deep enough to have have so many ranks. On a 9x9 board an average amateur beats a pro with handicap 3. That amateur would be crushed by the pro with handicap 9 in 19x19. Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: If someone has factual data[*] about 9 x 9 performance of current bots I'll gladly revise the estimate on the webpage on my own. Mogo is around 2500 on CGOS: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/MoGo_psg7.html In Amsterdam, ajahuang (kgs 6d) played a few games against MoGo on 9x9, and won them all. This can be seen in his history on KGS. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
Mogo is around 2500 on CGOS: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/MoGo_psg7.html This implies you believe the ratings didn't shift over time. http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2007-October/011405.html http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/MoGo_monothreadC.html http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/goala1.html The MoGo team has worked for 5 months and gained...-200 ELO. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/greenpeep0.3.4.html http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/greenpeep0.4.2.html Same phenomenon. In Amsterdam, ajahuang (kgs 6d) played a few games against MoGo on 9x9, and won them all. This can be seen in his history on KGS. That's a good data point which would drop the estimate a few ranks. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
Hi Gian-Carlo, There is an interesting phenomenon going on when it comes to the perception and advertisement of game playing strength. One is that people take time to accept concepts they are used to thinking differently about. I remember one human (chess) player who was pretty weak for many years, then all of a sudden he got serious and gains hundreds of ELO points in a couple of years - becoming a master. Many players could not accept this and it took a few years (even though he continued to play actively) for people to stop believing he was grossly overrated and be accepted as a strong player. Just a few years ago it was widely held that computers will not reach Dan level in my lifetime even in 9x9 Go.When it happened in 9x9 go, it was not accepted - the day it happened passed us by and nobody noticed it. It's probably still not common knowledge and it will take time for it to be generally believed. Another phenomenon, is what I call the contempt factor. In the old days of computer chess, you would buy a program or machine that was certified to be a certain strength level. But once you got comfortable and familiar with the program, you started learning it's weaknesses and got time to witness a few stupid moves - your contempt of it grew and your estimation of it's strength diminished. The same thing happens with human players but for some reason we don't hold that against them. It's not that the program is not as strong as advertised, it's just that the magic goes away once we get to take it apart and see how it works. I don't know if your program is high Dan level or not.I suspect it's low Dan level if I had to guess but it could be tested with a formalized match on KGS. I suggest multiple players for variety - a single player match is not a good test. - Don Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Russell Wallace wrote: I haven't seen Leela before, but the claim of high dan-level performance on 9x9 is certainly interesting. I don't think 2200 ELO on the 9x9 CGOS is equivalent to 'high dan-level' play. I was under the impression that MoGo (approx 2350 CGOS) was starting to cause trouble for pro players on 9 x 9. The released Leela version is a bit stronger than the last on CGOS and uses all CPUs, so high dan level was supposed to be a reasonable estimate. If someone has factual data[*] about 9 x 9 performance of current bots I'll gladly revise the estimate on the webpage on my own. [*] factual data is not: I feel it's about 1kyu. Or I played a few games and it sucks in life death. I had to take back a move because I wasn't really concentrated but I beat it easily. Must be less than 2 dan strength. One of the best things I found was a report from a 6 dan that he won a match 5-2 against an older version of MoGo. That puts MoGo at about 4 to 5 dan. I don't think what I said is unreasonable, unless a 5 dan is not considered high dan level. Arguing about this feels like a waste of time anyway. At the last KGS tournament people were arguing that Crazy Stone is overrated because it can't be 1k. The last time I saw this was when dan was called grandmaster. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
Don Dailey wrote: Just a few years ago it was widely held that computers will not reach Dan level in my lifetime even in 9x9 Go.When it happened in 9x9 go, it was not accepted - the day it happened passed us by and nobody noticed it. It's probably still not common knowledge and it will take time for it to be generally believed. What is the basis of the claim that a program has reached a certain human rank level? There should be systematic tests. Let it play against many humans. Let it enter human tournaments. Use a meaningful evaluation context. For some such evaluation, let me refer to a useful handicap system for 9x9, which has been used in some European 9x9 Championships: For the first 10 rank differences (0, 1,.., 9) decrease the komi from 6.5 for an even game by 1 point per extra rank. (Komi can become negative.) - OC, I prefer to see even games. OTOH, until the program rank is well known, it may be suitable to let a simgle human (the more humans the better) play until the handicap becomes stable. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
Robert Jasiek wrote: Don Dailey wrote: Just a few years ago it was widely held that computers will not reach Dan level in my lifetime even in 9x9 Go.When it happened in 9x9 go, it was not accepted - the day it happened passed us by and nobody noticed it. It's probably still not common knowledge and it will take time for it to be generally believed. What is the basis of the claim that a program has reached a certain human rank level? There should be systematic tests. Let it play against many humans. Let it enter human tournaments. Use a meaningful evaluation context. Yes, there should be. Right now it's very informal and anecdotal. Strictly speaking it is not possible to evaluate any player - the ELO system is subject to the laws of probability.So no matter how many games you play people can claim it's a fluke and blame the playing conditions or other factors. That's the point I was really trying to make.People will be resistant to the idea no matter what - so the best you can do is supply overwhelming empirical evidence and then if some want to be unreasonable they are easily identified - at least by reasonable people. For some such evaluation, let me refer to a useful handicap system for 9x9, which has been used in some European 9x9 Championships: For the first 10 rank differences (0, 1,.., 9) decrease the komi from 6.5 for an even game by 1 point per extra rank. (Komi can become negative.) - OC, I prefer to see even games. OTOH, until the program rank is well known, it may be suitable to let a simgle human (the more humans the better) play until the handicap becomes stable. For 9x9 ELO works better. For 19x19 it's less clear cut.The handicap system appears to be a good system at 19x19 and has the very nice merit of allowing grossly mismatched players to compete. I think the two systems can be married by adding a fixed offset per stone handicap to your ELO. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
It's not clear if you are talking about professional Dan level or Amateur Dan level. I've played the top 9x9 programs at 9x9, and so have several other amateur Dan players, and I think we all agree that the top 9x9 programs have reached amateur Dan level. I don't think these programs are as strong as professional Dan players. At 19x19 their strength is much less clear. I don't think they are quite to amateur Dan yet. David Fotland -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:54 AM To: computer-go Subject: Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective. Don Dailey wrote: Just a few years ago it was widely held that computers will not reach Dan level in my lifetime even in 9x9 Go.When it happened in 9x9 go, it was not accepted - the day it happened passed us by and nobody noticed it. It's probably still not common knowledge and it will take time for it to be generally believed. What is the basis of the claim that a program has reached a certain human rank level? There should be systematic tests. Let it play against many humans. Let it enter human tournaments. Use a meaningful evaluation context. For some such evaluation, let me refer to a useful handicap system for 9x9, which has been used in some European 9x9 Championships: For the first 10 rank differences (0, 1,.., 9) decrease the komi from 6.5 for an even game by 1 point per extra rank. (Komi can become negative.) - OC, I prefer to see even games. OTOH, until the program rank is well known, it may be suitable to let a simgle human (the more humans the better) play until the handicap becomes stable. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
David Fotland wrote: You can't add a fixed ELO offset per stone because games between stronger players have much lower variance in score. A handicap stone is approximately a score offset (about 7.5 points for the first handicap stone, and about 15 points for each additional stone). ELO measures probability of winning. A 2 stone handicap game between equal high dan players has a very high probability of black winning, so there must be a large ELO offset. A 2 stone game between low kyu players gives black a small increment in winning probability, so the ELO offset must be small. David Ok, so that means we would have to have a more sophisticated formula. The formula could be dynamically adjusted over time by the server itself to reflect actual results more accurately. - Don I think the two systems can be married by adding a fixed offset per stone handicap to your ELO. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
David Fotland wrote: It's not clear if you are talking about professional Dan level or Amateur Dan level. I have meant the latter. I've played the top 9x9 programs at 9x9, and so have several other amateur Dan players, and I think we all agree that the top 9x9 programs have reached amateur Dan level. Is there some summary of those tests, which is more profound than anecdotes? -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, David Fotland wrote: It's not clear if you are talking about professional Dan level or Amateur Dan level. I've played the top 9x9 programs at 9x9, and so have several other amateur Dan players, and I think we all agree that the top 9x9 programs have reached amateur Dan level. I don't think these programs are as strong as professional Dan players. Yes, they are amateur dan level, but not (yet) high (5+) dan. Chrsitoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Russell Wallace wrote: I haven't seen Leela before, but the claim of high dan-level performance on 9x9 is certainly interesting. I don't think 2200 ELO on the 9x9 CGOS is equivalent to 'high dan-level' play. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
On Dec 2, 2007 2:02 PM, Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was a thread on CCC (computer chess) about Go. An interesting post was made that linked to Leela, a Go engine and GUI written by the author of Deep Sjeng which is a moderate to high level chess engine. http://www.sjeng.org/leela.html Have any of you bought or tested the full version or have any more info? Seems interesting. I haven't seen Leela before, but the claim of high dan-level performance on 9x9 is certainly interesting. Do you have a link to the CCC thread? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
2007/12/2, Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There was a thread on CCC (computer chess) about Go. An interesting post was made that linked to Leela, a Go engine and GUI written by the author of Deep Sjeng which is a moderate to high level chess engine. http://www.sjeng.org/leela.html Have any of you bought or tested the full version or have any more info? In case anyone missed, Leela participated in 32nd KGS Computer Go Tournament. http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/32/index.html -- Seo Sanghyeon ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New engine? From a Chess programmer perspective.
Sure, it's a long URL though. http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17341postdays=0postorder=asctopic_view=start=30 -Josh On Dec 2, 2007 10:42 AM, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 2, 2007 2:02 PM, Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was a thread on CCC (computer chess) about Go. An interesting post was made that linked to Leela, a Go engine and GUI written by the author of Deep Sjeng which is a moderate to high level chess engine. http://www.sjeng.org/leela.html Have any of you bought or tested the full version or have any more info? Seems interesting. I haven't seen Leela before, but the claim of high dan-level performance on 9x9 is certainly interesting. Do you have a link to the CCC thread? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
