Hello,
can somebody give me ideas, links and other information on how to
program (Japanese) territory scoring rules?
especially
How to decide that the game is over.
How to decide what is teire (moves that costs the player points but
don't need to be played because there are still neutral
Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
A Go tounrmaent with Hahn system has been retransmeted
see ... http://www.suomigo.net/wiki/HahnSystem
Thanks for the interesting stuff and the links.
From the link HahnSystem:
Winning By 0.5-10 gets 60 points
Winning by 10.5-20 gets 70 points
Winning
If scoring matters, then instead of just estimating the winrate for a certain
move, a bot has to estimate a komi/winrate function.
As a shortcut, maybe a simoid scoring function will suddenly start to shine.
But that really folds winrate and winning score into a single dimension.
If that is too
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
I would have found a completely continuous result system
more natural, for instance
giving +40.5 points for each win with 40.5 or more
giving -40.5 points for each loss with 40.5 or more
The most natural score-dependent Go variant(!) would be the game result
x for the
Willemien wrote:
can somebody give me ideas, links and other information on how to
program (Japanese) territory scoring rules?
Read all the Japanese style rulesets here:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html
In particular, the Japanese 2003 Rules come the closest. For a start,
you can
Brian Sheppard wrote:
In this strategy, one chooses a random number p, and then select the
strategy with highest historical mean if p epsilon, and the
strategy taken least often otherwise. If epsilon = C*log(n)/n, where
n is the number of experiments so far, then the strategy has zero
maybe divided by ten?
s.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
I would have found a completely continuous result system
more natural, for instance
giving +40.5 points for each win with 40.5 or more
giving -40.5 points for each loss with
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Remi Coulom has done some work in this area:
http://remi.coulom.free.fr/QLR/
It sounds very interesting (v-optimal sampling). But I don't understand
it enough to implement it. Your idea sounds simpler, but the enumeration
would be a problem, for parameters with wide
steve uurtamo wrote:
maybe divided by ten?
To punish programs or me for the ability of killing 70 stones dragons?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
this simplification of the rules
Simplification? It does not even simplify strategy.
I am asserting that a properly modified bot is going to better at this
variant of the game. It's way easier to play
Don Dailey wrote:
It's way easier to play go like a beginner who is
focused more on not losing points on the board.
I do not think that strategy for Hahn should be to play like a beginner.
Rather one should include the following in one's considerations:
- Enlarging one's win score /
i'm just thinking that approximating the 10 stones on the board == 1
stone of handicap phenomenon might be a nice way to keep track of
score in a tournament. i realize that it's not terribly accurate, but
it would give a number that's easier to parse. dividing by 10 for
everyone wouldn't change
steve uurtamo wrote:
dividing by 10 for everyone wouldn't change the overall result
First you describe something like handicap steps, then you describe
something different (a mere division by 10). Therefore
so it wouldn't punish anyone, right?
...this question cannot be answered.
--
:)
my point was that simply totaling total won by points after each
game is over, or totalling total won by points divided by ten after
each game should produce the same rank order of results, therefore not
punishing anyone.
my comment that one handicap difference in strength, in an even game,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Alain Baeckeroot
alain.baecker...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 23/11/2009 à 15:04, Don Dailey a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
this simplification of the rules
Simplification? It does not
In message
402a9a520911230730u7cac1eeci8215a50f74133...@mail.gmail.com, steve
uurtamo uurt...@gmail.com writes
:)
my point was that simply totaling total won by points after each
game is over, or totalling total won by points divided by ten after
each game should produce the same rank order of
steve uurtamo wrote:
the idea that i like about keeping track of number of points won or
lost by is that not only could you find the winner, but you could find
how absolutely dominant, on average, they were against their
opponents.
Under normal Go: no! E.g., some players have the style to let
Don Dailey wrote:
I think it's simpler because I am a weak
player and I think more in terms of total points rather than winning games
Many weak players have told me (and for me when I was a beginner it was
the same) that they do not count territories at all...! Simpler than
what you are
I have repeatedly stated that the Hahn system is a simplification, but this
is just a guess on my part and I might have it backwards.I'm not sure
whether that invalidates the idea that computers will play this better or
not.
Here is a thought experiment.Imagine an omniscient player or
From what I understand, for each parameter you take with some high
probability the best so far, and with some lower probability the least
tried one. This requires (manually) enumerating all parameters on some
integer scale, if I got it correctly.
Yes, for each parameter you make a range of values
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
I think it's simpler because I am a weak
player and I think more in terms of total points rather than winning
games
Many weak players have told me (and for me when I was a beginner it was the
same)
In my experience, go players (I include myself) rarely count territory until
they reach the low-kyu level.
It's all about slaying dragons and adventure.
Terry McIntyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to
rule themselves, even
Don Dailey wrote:
In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is good enough.
If God is set to play any randomly chosen winning move, yes.
Since it is omnicient there is no point in talking about risk, or chances
in any context.
For a simple definition of God applied to a
Perhaps computers play better (so far) when they focus on the wins because they
are not omniscient; they can get suckered into thinking that large groups are
alive or dead when the reverse is actually true. Humans are better at
chunking life-and-death status of independent groups.
( Newell and
I avoided using the title God because I wanted to avoid issues such as god
looking into your brain and playing in such as way as to befuddle the
opponent or specially playing against your weaknesses or changing the laws
of physics in order to win a game.
So to keep it simple I am imagining an
Your system seems very interesting but it seems to me that you assume
that each parameters are independant.
What happen if, for example, two parameters works well when only one of
the is active and badly if the two are actives at the same time ?
Tom
--
Thomas LavergneEntia
GoGod and GoDevil are objective technical terms referring to the game
tree. They were defined roughly on rec.games.go quite some years ago but
I do not recall the definition details by heart. They have nothing to do
with psychology or probabilistic playing.
--
robert jasiek
What I cannot decide is if it is really more
challenging - I just know it's more challenging to do it perfectly.
More challenging for whom? For God, it is equally boring.
More challenging in the sense that more work must be done.
- Don
--
robert jasiek
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is good enough.
If God is set to play any randomly chosen winning move, yes.
Since it is omnicient there is no point in talking about risk,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
GoGod and GoDevil are objective technical terms referring to the game tree.
They were defined roughly on rec.games.go quite some years ago but I do not
recall the definition details by heart. They have nothing to do with
In message
5212e61a0911231136t1e83ce37i9375a033fe3e0...@mail.gmail.com, Don
Dailey dailey@gmail.com writes
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de
wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is good
enough.
If God
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
In message 5212e61a0911231136t1e83ce37i9375a033fe3e0...@mail.gmail.com,
Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com writes
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de
wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
In win game
Don Dailey wrote:
So why then did you start talking about knowing the opponetns strategy in
hindsight?
Because the Devil does know it. Not by psychology but by defined
abstraction of the human player.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
In message 5212e61a0911231302j6d838d2dnae1cbc875af0...@mail.gmail.com,
Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com writes
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
In message
5212e61a0911231136t1e83ce37i9375a033fe3e0...@mail.gmail.com, Don
Dailey dailey@gmail.com writes
Don Dailey wrote:
If all moves lose, how would YOU select?
E.g., I choose some that creates the most ready traps.
Did you get the point that I'm defining 2 separate strategies?One is to
maximize the points on the board and the other is to not make any
distinction whatsoever between moves
see http://senseis.xmp.net/?BangNeki
Terry McIntyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to
rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey
___
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
If all moves lose, how would YOU select?
E.g., I choose some that creates the most ready traps.
Did you get the point that I'm defining 2 separate strategies?One is
to
maximize the points on the
Your system seems very interesting but it seems to me that you assume
that each parameters are independant.
What happen if, for example, two parameters works well when only one of
the is active and badly if the two are actives at the same time ?
I think that I am assuming only that the objective
For my fast/dumb neural net engine, Antbot9x9, I coevolved the weights using a
similar tournament system. Each individual played a number of games against all
the others, round robin, and the score was the sum of points for all of its
games.
Some observations/claims:
Non-transitive effects
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 06:12:39PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
If you lose a won game that is not maximizing the points on the board, so
what you are saying is nonsense. We are supposed to be taking about
GoGod strategy.
I got somehow lost in the thread - why is it even interesting to
In message 4b0ad6f5.1010...@snafu.de, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de
writes
GoGod and GoDevil are objective technical terms referring to the game
tree. They were defined roughly on rec.games.go quite some years ago
but I do not recall the definition details by heart. They have nothing
to do
Hi all,
I'm now testing a cluster version of Zen (Zengg-4x4c-tst), developed
by a joint project with Yamato, on cgos 19x19. It wons, however, all
games (except first one with timeout due to a bug). Running more
strong programs are very appreciated.
Note: It's running on a mini cluster of 4
Well No, this games game lot harder. Even when point matter, 1st goal is to
win the game in traditional sense to get any points at all. Which make just
as hard as normal game. Then comes huge risk assesment risks involved. Lets
assume - not so rare case - that you can go for the throat or attack
Don Dailey wrote:
What is happening here is that we keep shifting back and forth between
contexts.
Exactly, this I have tried to exhibit.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
44 matches
Mail list logo
