On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:03:17PM +0100, Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
Le lundi 18 février 2008, Michael Williams a écrit :
But as was pointed out before, these high levels of MoGo are probably still
not pro level, right?
On 9x9 Big_slow_Mogo is near pro level, maybe more.
6 monthes ago or
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Recently I have lost some faith in my belief that 7.0 komi is right on
9x9 with Chinese CGOS style rules. I was never absolutely SURE of
it, but I believed it with a high degree of confidence. I still
believe 7.0 is correct, but I'm somewhat less
Don,
Interesting thoughts and links. I read through them all. :)
Some points: I wasn't expressing an opinion as to the degree of
difference between God's komi and Man's komi. 2.5 seems perfectly
reasonable (at least with current levels of skill).
As far as it being widely believed that
Le lundi 18 février 2008, Michael Williams a écrit :
But as was pointed out before, these high levels of MoGo are probably still
not pro level, right?
On 9x9 Big_slow_Mogo is near pro level, maybe more.
6 monthes ago or so it was able to regurlarly beat pro without komi on 9x9.
Alain
? -Original Message-
? From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
? To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
? Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 1:45 pm
? Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: computer-go Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8
...I have seen widely held beliefs be proven wrong before
(the earth
: computer-go Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8
...I have seen widely held beliefs be proven wrong before
(the earth is flat is one example.)
You are older than I thought. :-) On a more serious note, what is the status
of the scalability study?
- Dave Hillis
Michael Williams wrote:
But as was pointed out before, these high levels of MoGo are probably
still not pro level, right?
I don't know how strong Mogo is in the grand scheme of things - but the
experiments with komi indicate that 7.0 is too low and that 8.0 is a
lower bound on what komi should
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: computer-go Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8
Hi David,
Any opinion either of us have on this is only speculation.
Nevertheless, in any kind
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
My feelings on this seem to match at least one source:
Look here:http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi
Here is an excerpt:
It is widely believed that the correct komi is independent of board size
for all but the
9.5pt komi is unreasonable. I agree with Don that perfect game value
will probably turn out to be 7pts, though I'm keeping an open mind that
it may be 6pts. I'd be surprised if it was 8pts, though that could just
mean I've been analyzing the wrong openings :-).
On 9x9 with Chinese rules
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
9.5pt komi is unreasonable. I agree with Don that perfect game value
will probably turn out to be 7pts, though I'm keeping an open mind that
it may be 6pts. I'd be surprised if it was 8pts, though that could just
mean
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
With 20 minute games, some people succeed in winning games
against the release 3 of MoGo. But for
X-hours-per-move, I don't know.
What are the self-play results (white vs. black) for hour-long
games of Mogo?
I am wondering
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
With 20 minute games, some people succeed in winning games
against the release 3 of MoGo. But for
X-hours-per-move, I don't know.
What are the self-play results (white vs. black) for hour-long
games of Mogo?
I am wondering if the proper komi for 9x9
Thinking a little more about it, I think we have to add an hypothesis
which is that, for a given move, the number of AMAF updates if alpha
(nb total UCT updates), with alpha 1. That seems to hold for most of
the updates (with alpha close to 0.5), but there may be cases where it
does not
I can't tell if you mean the float version or the double version.
Using the float version (since it was all I had), I did a fairly
extensive analysis of the losing move from the MoGo game that Fotland
added comments to. My results were posted to this list on 2/1/08
under the subject, UCT
On Feb 11, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
My feelings on this seem to match at least one source:
Look here:http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi
Here is an excerpt:
It is widely believed that the correct komi is independent of board
size
for all but the smallest boards. For area
Andy wrote:
But the program isn't stronger than pros, so how can it give better
information about proper komi?
Pro's cannot give you statistical information on komi unless you simply
collate several thousand pro games.
I don't think you need a particularly strong program, just good
programs.
But the program isn't stronger than pros, so how can it give better
information about proper komi?
On Feb 11, 2008 6:09 PM, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
I don't bet, but if I did, I would bet that it's 7 or 8, and I'm
fairly certain that
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Is your question whether 7.0 or 8.0 is the best komi? Or do you
suspect a different 1/2 komi value is best?
I wonder what the true komi is ... I don't know (nobody knows?) if
it's fractional or not; eg. for 7x7 it is 9.0.
I
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Is your question whether 7.0 or 8.0 is the best komi? Or do you
suspect a different 1/2 komi value is best?
I wonder what the true komi is ... I don't know (nobody knows?) if
it's fractional or not; eg. for 7x7 it is 9.0.
Christoph
Olivier Teytaud: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That translates to mean that MoGo no longer uses upper confidence
bounds, and only uses means. It also means that MoGo will _never_
explore improbable children (after a few sims) unless the RAVE value
yields an unusually high estimate for it. Is all of
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My feelings on this seem to match at least one source:
Look here:http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi
Here is an excerpt:
It is widely believed that the correct komi is independent of board size
for all but the smallest boards. For area scoring, this
On Feb 12, 2008 2:10 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy wrote:
But the program isn't stronger than pros, so how can it give better
information about proper komi?
Pro's cannot give you statistical information on komi unless you simply
collate several thousand pro games.
I don't
On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
David Schneider-Joseph wrote:
On that topic - might it be possible that the notion of a proper
komi, derived as it is from the hand of God (perfect play), will
invariably be too high for any actual go players which would be an
interesting match
David Schneider-Joseph wrote:
On that topic - might it be possible that the notion of a proper
komi, derived as it is from the hand of God (perfect play), will
invariably be too high for any actual go players which would be an
interesting match for each other?
I guess it's possible. I
On that topic - might it be possible that the notion of a proper
komi, derived as it is from the hand of God (perfect play), will
invariably be too high for any actual go players which would be an
interesting match for each other?
On Feb 11, 2008, at 7:35 PM, Andy wrote:
But the program
Don Dailey wrote:
I tried Alford's value of 9.5 komi and white is even more happy, showing
about 0.547 in the score.
I don't believe what Alford says about 9.5 being the correct komi for
9x9.Where does that information come from?
Japanese tv games.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
I don't bet, but if I did, I would bet that it's 7 or 8, and I'm
fairly certain that with best play the game would end with 7 extra
points for black.
I think this was discussed at great length 2 or 3 years ago.
I know ... I brought it up again because
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Is your question whether 7.0 or 8.0 is the best komi? Or do you
suspect a different 1/2 komi value is best?
I wonder what the true komi is ... I don't know (nobody knows?) if
it's fractional or not; eg. for 7x7 it is 9.0.
As far as I see,
if RAVE gives constant value 0 to one move, it will never be tested if
other moves
have non-zero AMAF values.
A move
with real empirical probability 0 of winning and AMAF value of 0.01
will always be preferred to a non-simulated move with AMAF 0.0, whatever
may be
the
Sylvain wrote:
Thinking a little more about it, I think we have to add an hypothesis
which is that, for a given move, the number of AMAF updates if alpha
(nb total UCT updates), with alpha 1. That seems to hold for most of
the updates (with alpha close to 0.5), but there may be cases where
A new position is always visited unless the leaf of the tree is the
end of the game. In that case, one player always win, so the other
always win. Then, the losing player will explore all the other moves
to avoid the sure loss. If all moves are still loosing, that will
propagate to the move
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Michael Alford wrote:
i believe correct komi for 9x9 with pros is 9.5
That's way too large.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
David Schneider-Joseph wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
David Schneider-Joseph wrote:
On that topic - might it be possible that the notion of a proper
komi, derived as it is from the hand of God (perfect play), will
invariably be too high for any actual go players
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 11:50 +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
I think it is time to share this idea with the world :-)
The idea is to estimate bias and variance to calculate the best combination
of UCT and RAVE values.
I have attached a pdf explaining the new formula.
It is written in the
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:35 +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
That translates to mean that MoGo no longer uses upper confidence
bounds, and only uses means. It also means that MoGo will _never_
explore improbable children (after a few sims) unless the RAVE value
yields an unusually high
I'm just surprised to hear that the program that introduced UCT (and got
so many others to use it), isn't using UCT any more. Combining RAVE and
UCT as described in the PDF still sounds like UCT to me, but with no
sqrt(log) term, it no longer is. I'll certainly have to think about the
trades
in the variation with highest winning
probability.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Olivier Teytaud
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 9:35 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: computer-go Digest, Vol 43
- at each (or every n) iteration you add one node.
As far as I see, new nodes are created only if new nodes are visited;
if
score(visited nodes) score(unvisited nodes)
why would mogo visit new nodes ?
But (before the recent PDF file) I never understood completly
the bandit in mogo, so
A new position is always visited unless the leaf of the tree is the
end of the game. In that case, one player always win, so the other
always win. Then, the losing player will explore all the other moves
to avoid the sure loss. If all moves are still loosing, that will
propagate to the move
== if someone beats the release MoGoR3 with
very large computation times (time x nbcores = 4h, 1 to 4 cores)
I'm interested in the sgf file and the analysis
I can't tell if you mean the float version or the double version. Using the float version (since it was all I had), I did a
I can't tell if you mean the float version or the double version. Using the
float version (since it was all I had), I did a fairly extensive analysis of
the losing move from the MoGo game that Fotland added comments to. My
results were posted to this list on 2/1/08 under the subject, UCT and
Michael Williams wrote:
== if someone beats the release MoGoR3 with
very large computation times (time x nbcores = 4h, 1 to 4 cores)
I'm interested in the sgf file and the analysis
I can't tell if you mean the float version or the double version. Using
the float version (since it was
David Silver wrote:
I think it is time to share this idea with the world :-)
Great. Thanks for sharing.
Rémi
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Thank you very much, Silver. Interesting report!
-Hideki
David Silver: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
On 7-Feb-08, at 1:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note as well that the current implementation of MoGo (not the one at
the time of the ICML paper) use a different tradeoff between UCT and
Rave
On Feb 8, 2008 12:09 PM, David Silver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is time to share this idea with the world :-)
The idea is to estimate bias and variance to calculate the best
combination of UCT and RAVE values.
I have attached a pdf explaining the new formula.
Thanks!
The original
46 matches
Mail list logo
