Hi all,
If I may get out of lurking mode and try to understand the problem here...
IMHO there is another issue here that creates a difference and makes
the strategies for normal go and hahn go incomparable. I has been
touched upon by previous posters, but not spelled out.
Normal go strategy
Hi,
Hahn go strategy is only relevant for a tournament (otherwise one can
simply play normal go, it doesn't matter by how many points one wins).
And thus it includes a meta-strategy involving the results in the
other games and knowledge of one's opponents.
One can also play a single game
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:18, Tapani Raiko pra...@cis.hut.fi wrote:
Hi,
Hahn go strategy is only relevant for a tournament (otherwise one can
simply play normal go, it doesn't matter by how many points one wins).
And thus it includes a meta-strategy involving the results in the
other games
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:18, Tapani Raiko pra...@cis.hut.fi wrote:
One can also play a single game for instance with money bets based on
the Hahn points, which makes Hahn go strategy relevant also for a single
game.
Just a thought: if the bet is I can beat you with X points on the
board or
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:18, Tapani Raiko pra...@cis.hut.fi wrote:
One can also play a single game for instance with money bets based on
the Hahn points, which makes Hahn go strategy relevant also for a single
game.
Just a thought: if the bet is I can beat
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 14:20, Tapani Raiko pra...@cis.hut.fi wrote:
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Just a thought: if the bet is I can beat you with X points on the
board or more, then it's exactly like trying to win a normal game
with X points komi, right?
Are there any other kind of bets?
Yes,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
So the only difference in play is when losing, one has to keep trying
to lose as little as possible, resigning isn't an option. When ahead,
there's no reason to try to win big, unless the goal is to reach a
certain amount of
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 15:45, Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
So the only difference in play is when losing, one has to keep trying
to lose as little as possible, resigning isn't an option. When ahead,
there's no reason
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:57:37PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the strategy should be to
push each game to the limit. Trying to win with a large margin is less
safe than with a small one, so it depends on the gambler's mindset.
That's why I said
In message
95be1d3b0911240657g24467ecey84cdb05918ca7...@mail.gmail.com, Vlad
Dumitrescu vladd...@gmail.com writes
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 15:45, Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
So the only difference in play is when
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 16:11, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
Suppose my attempts to read the game tell me If I seal off my territory at
A, I will win by 5 points. If instead I invade at B, then 70% of the time I
will win by 25 points, 30% of the time I will lose by 5 points.
If I am
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:19:45PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Sure. But different gamblers have different break-even limits, i.e.
different mindsets. Some are cautious and prefer 80% for those 25
points; some are reckless and would go for B even with 60%.
No professional gambler, if he
Brian Sheppard wrote:
I think that I am assuming only that the objective function is convex. The
parameters in Go programs are always inter-dependent.
What do you do when you add a new parameter? Do you retain your existing
'history', considering each game to have been played with the value of
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 16:11, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
Suppose my attempts to read the game tell me If I seal off my territory at
A, I will win by 5 points. If instead I invade at B, then 70% of the time I
will win by 25 points, 30% of the time I will lose by 5 points.
If I am
Hideki Kato wrote:
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.
Hideki, thx for your
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
I think this game [go with Hahn scoring; IA] is clearly more
difficult than a binary win/loss game.
That is one of the possible question, and I also vote for yes,
as normal go is simply a Hahn-Go veriant with coarsened evaluation.
Even more interesting might be this
Ingo Althöfer: 20091124190802.303...@gmx.net:
Hideki Kato wrote:
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
Hideki replied:
Do I have a Christmas wish for free already?
It is: Let the cluster also run on KGS - against the humans.
I'd like to do so but it's not allowed to connect the
cluster to the Internet, sigh.
Hmm. As CGOS is also Internet, it seems that Zen-author
does not allow you to
Ingo Althöfer: 20091124200643.255...@gmx.net:
Hideki replied:
Do I have a Christmas wish for free already?
It is: Let the cluster also run on KGS - against the humans.
I'd like to do so but it's not allowed to connect the
cluster to the Internet, sigh.
Hmm. As CGOS is also Internet, it
Hi Hideki,
Is Zen-Author reading here?
Maybe, he can rethink about the possibility.
He is sleeping now 'cause it's 5:30 am in Japan :).
Ok, let him his good sleep.
I want Cluster-Zen for Christmas, Cluster-Zen-for Christmas,
Cluster-Zen for Christmas, please, please, please, please...
In message 20091124193826.303...@gmx.net, Ingo Althöfer
3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de writes
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
I think this game [go with Hahn scoring; IA] is clearly more
difficult than a binary win/loss game.
That is one of the possible question, and I also vote for yes,
as normal go is simply
In message 4b0c4522.370%hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp, Hideki Kato
hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp writes
Ingo Althöfer: 20091124200643.255...@gmx.net:
Hideki replied:
Do I have a Christmas wish for free already?
It is: Let the cluster also run on KGS - against the humans.
I'd like to do so but it's not
Le 24/11/2009 à 00:24, dhillism...@netscape.net a écrit :
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
Hi Nick,
I'll perticipate comming tournaments as much as possible but it's
still under development and needs much more work and time for full
performance.
Since my mini cluster uses usual Gigabit Ether, which is much slower
than expensive Infiniband or such high speed network devices, it
Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
If i understand what D.Hillis said, it can put in light some hidden
aspects of the bots, and should be more spectacular than the
wise-sure-win style of MC *Go* bots.
And i guess it does not require lot of change in the code, only
points instead of win/loss in the
From: Vlad Dumitrescu vladd...@gmail.com
I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't get it. There must be some subtle
detail that escapes me...
Please try to explain why the hahn calculation isn't working in a
normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about
In message
95be1d3b0911241346o3d26135eif8f184eb3f516...@mail.gmail.com, Vlad
Dumitrescu vladd...@gmail.com writes
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 22:15, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
But the additive property of Hahn scoring makes life easy for players. If
the board has become separated into
Also, on 19x19 board, current 16-core cluster version performs almost
the same as 8-core shared memory pc such as Mac Pro, which Yamato used
for KGS.
Hi Hideki,
Is that difference due to a scaling limit of Zen, or is this due to the
cluster overhead? Would moving from gigabit to infiniband
No professional gambler, if he had the numbers laid out for him, would
ever choose unoptimal play, not when he's playing for the long
term. The computer, in the same way, would have to be modeled to
maximize expected value. Nothing else makes sense.
In a single game with high stakes, yes mindset
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:11:55AM +0100, Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
A professional gambler has a 2 step task.
1. Find a weaker player (aka fish)
[...]
So the whole idea of optimizing the score it totally besides the point.
I was using the professional gambler as a rational player in an
In message 200911242252.09463.alain.baecker...@laposte.net, Alain
Baeckeroot alain.baecker...@laposte.net writes
In another thread Nick Wedd wrote:
The December KGS bot tournament will be 9x9. I guess that if a
cluster-Zen competes in that (I am hoping it will), it will be
unbeatable.
The
No professional gambler, if he had the numbers laid out for him, would
ever choose unoptimal play, ...
A professional gambler has a 2 step task.
1. Find a weaker player (aka fish)
2. capture the fish('s bankroll)
Big Deal, by Anthony Holden, is a fine read (a professional writer took
a
What do you do when you add a new parameter? Do you retain your existing
'history', considering each game to have been played with the value of
the new parameter set to zero?
Yes, exactly.
If you have 50 parameters already, doesn't adding a new parameter create
a rather large number of new
Darren Cook: 4b0c6706.7070...@dcook.org:
Also, on 19x19 board, current 16-core cluster version performs almost
the same as 8-core shared memory pc such as Mac Pro, which Yamato used
for KGS.
Hi Hideki,
Is that difference due to a scaling limit of Zen, or is this due to the
cluster overhead?
The performance gap is perhaps due to the algorithms. Almost all
cluster versions of current strong programs (MoGo, MFG, Fuego and Zen)
use root parallel while shared memory computers allow us to use thread
parallelism, which gives better performance.
I think you should not have troubles
2009/11/24 terry mcintyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com:
Please try to explain why the hahn calculation isn't working in a
normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about strong human
players.
In my view, we have
hahn: object of the game = max board score
normal: object of the game =
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 23:58, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
Vlad Dumitrescu vladd...@gmail.com writes
Please try to explain why the hahn calculation isn't working in a
normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about strong human
players.
Are you talking about omniscient players?
Thank you Oliver,
Olivier Teytaud: aa5e3c330911242304tc6b9e1bk466b1f08cb65d...@mail.gmail.com:
The performance gap is perhaps due to the algorithms. Almost all
cluster versions of current strong programs (MoGo, MFG, Fuego and Zen)
use root parallel while shared memory computers allow us to
38 matches
Mail list logo
