On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 00:43, Darren Cook dar...@dcook.org wrote:
When I read this it reminded me of experiments I tried before to pass
more than one piece of information up from the leaf nodes of a (min-max)
tree. E.g. a territory estimate and an influence estimate. I gave up as
it got too
Le 26/11/2009 à 10:08, Vlad Dumitrescu a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 00:43, Darren Cook dar...@dcook.org wrote:
When I read this it reminded me of experiments I tried before to pass
more than one piece of information up from the leaf nodes of a (min-max)
tree. E.g. a territory
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:06, Alain Baeckeroot
alain.baecker...@laposte.net wrote:
Maybe have a look at signal processing, using higher-orders statistics ?
mean
std-deviation = order 2 (or 1 ?)
...
win by 10 with std = 100 seems much less secure than win by 5 with std=1
but maybe this
In message
95be1d3b0911242338u1b6bedcasf91d53bd80f69...@mail.gmail.com, Vlad
Dumitrescu vladd...@gmail.com writes
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
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
A program to play Hahn Go has no
reason to calculate probabilities, it should just make the biggest move it
can.
Ah, okay, now I understand your point of view. Thanks for explaining.
Making the largest move available is just
Le 25/11/2009 à 12:39, Vlad Dumitrescu a écrit :
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
A program to play Hahn Go has no
reason to calculate probabilities, it should just make the biggest move it
can.
Ah, okay, now I understand your point of view. Thanks for
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:51, Alain Baeckeroot
alain.baecker...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 25/11/2009 à 12:39, Vlad Dumitrescu a écrit :
Making the largest move available is just one possible strategy to
attain the goal of ending the game with the most points scored. A more
general strategy is to
In message
95be1d3b0911250448r79a5b7ddu61a42c0b42410...@mail.gmail.com, Vlad
Dumitrescu vladd...@gmail.com writes
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:51, Alain Baeckeroot
alain.baecker...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 25/11/2009 à 12:39, Vlad Dumitrescu a écrit :
Making the largest move available is just one
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 14:18, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
If playing one move lead 10% of time to +10, and 90% to -20,
the resulting value is -17
(of course with the bot evaluation/playout)
Reducing the value to -17 is losing a lot of information. Another move
might have 20% chances
Le 25/11/2009 à 15:11, Vlad Dumitrescu a écrit :
What I am considering is a way to analyze a list of moves, each having
in turn a value that is a list of expected outcomes and their
respective estimated probabilities, and to sort the moves by the
expected outcome in the context of a given risk
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 15:49, Alain Baeckeroot
alain.baecker...@laposte.net wrote:
If using a more generic approach,
the strategy can be parametrized and optimized (both offline and
online), hopefully resulting in a better gameplay.
I don't understand how anything could be better than the
This is taken onto account in the tree.
If playing one move lead 10% of time to +10, and 90% to -20,
the resulting value is -17
(of course with the bot evaluation/playout)
Reducing the value to -17 is losing a lot of information. Another move
might have 20% chances of +10 and 80% chances
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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/
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,
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
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
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
Abbey
From: Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 8:21:15 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Hahn system tournament and MC bots
I have repeatedly stated that the Hahn system is a simplification
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
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
Subject: [computer-go] Re: Hahn system tournament and MC bots
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
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
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
64 matches
Mail list logo
