it alone and hope that
everybody helps in making the contents useful again.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
steve uurtamo wrote:
there's simply nothing
more irritating than someone attempting an unreasonable
invasion at the end of a game in order to try to turn a loss
into a win.
I try this during the opening, the middle game, and the
endgame. The only difference is in YOUR perception.
--
robert
make the same mistakes again, first read
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcmod.html
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
are not obvious, I also try some ko threats myself.
It may win you a game occasionally but it won't make your program
play any better.
Winning more games is better play.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http
Jason House wrote:
KGS does a fine job with unfilled dame.
Any server that violates the rules during scoring does not do a fine
job. KGS violates whichever Japanese rules.
--
robert
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Dave Dyer wrote:
all the rules arguments in Go are really
only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary
situations.
Traditional Territory Scoring rules fail in the most ordinary (!)
positions of EACH game, see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html
What you claim is false
Jason House wrote:
I mean that the
resulting marking of who's territories is who's matches what I would have
done if I stopped at that point and scored the game.
Occasionally, KGS fails here. See rec.games.go or elsewhere for details.
I don't see a way that
the game would have come out to
Jason House wrote:
If both players
miss it because it's a more complex vulnerability, then they miss it and
the score corresponds to their expectations.
Players miss it mostly when being too lazy to make a positional
judgement shortly before the end and to verify whether KGS marks the
right
strength against humans. When will we see the strong
programs entering real world tournaments?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
, 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
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/
David Doshay wrote:
When tournament organizers allow and encourage it!
Some (local) European tournaments would allow it. (Some have already
done it.) Encourage - not yet :)
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Don Dailey wrote:
you can still
judge the quality of your opponent by looking at his 19x19 KGS ranking.
Rather by looking at his real world ranking. A human real world rank may
be off by 1 while a human KGS rank may be off by 6 ranks.
--
robert jasiek
.
According to Terry Benson: Natural Situational Superko
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
(in a nakade
there are often more death than life sequences even if a simple vital
point makes life), or by the short but wrong pattern database. The UCT
programmers should tell us.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
])
***
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[gd]BL[252.0];W[he]WL[227.0];B[gc]BL[251.0];W[fb]WL[222.0]
;B[hf]BL[249.0];W[cf]WL[208.0];B[cb]BL[240.0];W[ca]WL[203.0];B[ba]BL[231.0];
W[aa]WL[188.0];B[fc]BL[227.0])
***
--
robert jasiek
]BL[163.0];W[ld]WL[87.0]
;B[ib]BL[157.0];W[hb]WL[83.0];B[ja]BL[155.0];W[id]WL[78.0];B[ie]BL[151.0];
W[he]WL[71.0];B[hd]BL[149.0];W[ij]WL[64.0];B[gd]BL[144.0])
***
--
robert jasiek
it is artificial.)
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
definition one chooses.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
to implement. If you really want to discuss this, tell
us, so that we can refer to the results of earlier discussion / research...
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer
Song wrote:
If the GO rules standardized on one ruleset that forbid suicide,
At that time, do you still disscuss suicide and use it in game evaluation ?
Research is free; it does not need to impose itself unnecessary
restrictions. So - yes.
--
robert jasiek
Don Dailey wrote:
What should the komi be for 13x13 Go?
8.5. Reason: In European Championships this leads to 0.5 games the most
frequently.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org
How well does the nakade improvement perform on 13x13?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
Previous records against Guo Juan, as far
as I know:
- 1/3 wins with komi 7.5
- 9/14 wins with komi 0.5 (mogo black,
i.e. komi in favor of mogo)
Has the program become that much stronger on 9x9 recently?
(Compared to the version was trying?)
--
robert
for MC playouts it seems
though that the programs should get nakade right first before bothering
about semeais. Therefore currently I think that static semeai evaluation
is more useful for classical expert system programs.
--
robert jasiek
cases.)
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
and be happy afterwards.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
the removal of dead stones, these counting methods do NOT destroy
the position:
- point by point counting
- point by point half counting
- some algorithmic virtual counting like flood-filling
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer
to prevent cheating during the counting or the
necessiety to reconfirm if the counting is performed faster than one can
follow it visually.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo
not recall an
opponent that would have objected. Some of my opponents do it, too.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
rather than for computer go.
Does someone here know of other (documented) attempts
to solve 6x6 Go?
Didn't Erik van der Werf do it under his rules?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org
to enable yourself to define
particular shapes in the first place so that you won't overlook any of
your potentially hated disgusting shapes...
BTW, positional superko IS accepted in some human rulesets like Chinese,
Simplified Ing, or World Mind Sports Games 2008.
--
robert jasiek
-flaws can be removed, triple-kos are not
fought, and triple-kos can be removed (one side is dead!).
Fine in theory but nobody likes my very efficient invention :( Maybe you?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http
-tie rule
- 3 ending passes
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
is misleading.
As a consequence, when you let programs (or humans in tournaments) play
on KGS, you should first agree on the rules interpretation and on how to
handle KGS scoring mistakes in this context.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer
are improper.
One always must have a logfile
Good.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
the minimal number of conditions.
Elegant.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
elegant
Why? Elegant in which sense? Why is that sense more relevant than other
aspects? And how do you compare situational superko and natural
situational superko with respect to elegance?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go
. Not
being an expert is not a good excuse for not providing reasons, either.
Also you emphasize rationale, so we should exchange not just opinions
but reasons.
To offer an on-topic reason: positional superko requires less storage
and execution time than situational superko.
--
robert jasiek
by ugly corner cases? It does not require ko
rules. E.g., hane-sekis are also pretty ugly. To avoid such, one needs
at least a Passing is prohibited if an opposing string is on atari.
rule (which must be made consistent with the used ko rule(s), e.g., by
overriding them).
--
robert jasiek
(about the made CG calculations), I would want to read it when I
should have time. So far I have seen only Erik's preliminary draft, and
that was not on the level of complete mathematical proofs about a solution.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing
is proven mathematically,
e) the used computer environment is stated,
f) there is a statement that the computation has been done successfully and
g) it is possible to repeat the computation independently.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer
and it drives me nuts.
Right.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
inside a two-eye-formation..
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
still release your
restrictions iteratively. Start with X=0, then X=1, then X=2,...
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
and rules?! Just because we
are too proud to solve anything less than Go under complete ordinary
rules immediately?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
David Fotland wrote:
made the playouts slightly heavier by adding a few
2-liberty local rules.
What does heavier mean here and could you please give an example of
such a rule? Do you have an understanding why they make your program
stronger?
--
robert jasiek
by
the concept 2-liberty local rule.)
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Magnus Persson wrote:
I think it may make more sense to break down the joseki into common
local patterns
Patterns are doubtful. Even the best shape can be dead.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http
/ hopefully only / rather global (and therefore relatively
thin) search.
When you say two play, do you want to stop global search after exactly
two moves? Wouldn't that be an exaggeration?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go
: Can you give us a comment on Fuego's influence-oriented Joseki's
in the KGS bot tournament on Sunday ?
I am not sure which game that is; please send it to me / the list as SGF
inline or attachment. Or do you mean all games of Fuego played on 11-08?
--
robert jasiek
then combined with
Local Move Selections and ladder conditions.
***
BTW, I don't know. Who is Fuego's author?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
... I do not mention some obvious mistakes.
Are they later in the game(s), or also
some in the openings?
Also some during the opening. (Every dan player can point them out to
you. Ask those that can distinguish sum-style from obvious mistakes.)
--
robert jasiek
and to start counting the endgame at move 1,
too, are helpful.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
. a
keima around tengen - and this had been known decades before me. I may
choose wider shapes as well though.
MC programs agree: They also prefer balanced stone distributions or
Indirect Connections.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
into account as well. Furthermore the generation of the
moves creates a difference from random because it is (or should be)
embedded in a context of reasoning, planning or (MC programs) statistics.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
creates similar center
shapes but by moving from the edges to the center while I tend to do the
opposite much more often.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Don Dailey wrote:
this simplification of the rules
Simplification? It does not even simplify strategy.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
for the score x, with resignation being not available and using some
scoring method that has +-361 as its extreme scores.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
of your programming work) is reduction to
Area Scoring and then adjustment of at least the most frequent differences:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/diffasts.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/asintro.pdf
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer
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/
a proof that playing for score is a
significantly DIFFERENT strategy.
Many, if not by far the most, human players have made this empirical
proof, too.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org
.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
every game
be close.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
many more follow-up decisions
remain valid and thus still have to be considered.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
risk when killing
70 stones groups.)
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.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go
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
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
of
bad aji. A sure lose-a-won-game strategy;)
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
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
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman
Robert Jasiek wrote:
Types of Basic Kos
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko_types.pdf
Version 6 is available.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
.
The graphics is very good.
And be sure to buy the hardcover edition - the softcover is a fraud
(although it has the same, copied contents).
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman
| + + + # +
white is alive (captured-1)
and black is dead (captured-3)
One of the strings is C1, the other is C2. Study some further sequences
and you find out which.
game ends with 2 or 3 passes (to include ko passes)
No. Rather use three move types: play, pass, ko-pass.
--
robert jasiek
missed them. Perhaps you use a different definition of science?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
on the strength of your used program.
Maybe you should calibrate its strength by letting play a few test games
before starting with the real competition.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org
are familiar with these as well as basic programming paradigms
(as dull as divide and conquer), you might wish to look for topics
specific to artificial intelligence like, e.g., expert system.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer
with handicaps you can observe winning probabilities empirically.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
was a bit farther by
assuming a constant decrement and forming a sum. His was not a proof
either because sizes of moves in the paths of the game tree need not
decrease constantly.
Rather than being proofs, such arguments are plausible approximations.
--
robert jasiek
and
the parameter x relate the 1990ies' raw sketch along the idea Black
passes, then instead White makes the first play to perfect play.
Note that the miai value of the second play on the board in relation
to komi is still unknown.
--
robert jasiek
Assume a 19x19 no-handicap game played by perfect players
as ordinary
MC because some expert knowledge is necessary or must be approximated
heuristically. Needless to say, keep the computational complexity of
this expert knowledge low.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
, but then we will not understand much in terms of go
theory why the programs will excel. For getting much understanding of go
theory from programs, human/program collaboration will be necessary anyway.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go
presuppositions) or is research in understanding it not advanced far enough?
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
How much computation time do you expect to reveil the complete exact
19x19 number? Or is more research necessary before I may ask this?
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo
more.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
On 06.11.2015 10:47, Aja Huang wrote:
area scoring, in which case the score is almost always odd.
Black wins: odd score
White wins: even score
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman
to 100, 10, 10 for the sake of expert system input,
but even then the implementation task is huge (man-years). Not to
mention semantic testing of processed data to get a "thinking" workload
similar to my own thinking.
--
robert jasiek
___
C
that needs some "calculation" and basic
counting or limited reading fail, MC can come in to do the calculation.
E.g., an expert system can identify groups of likely connected strings,
then MC can calculate if indeed (statistically) the connection is given.
--
rob
ups strength was the core concept feeding into the full board evaluation,
which tried to estimate the score.
But what WAS your group strength...?:)
Score estimation of a given position should also depend on territory
counts, not only on group strength etc.
--
robert jas
and
connection status, for what purposes did you use them and how did you
apply them?
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
as expert system knowledge.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
short overview
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/RobertJasiekGoTheoryResearch.html
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
.)
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
to be coded and maybe of the complexity of time remain.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
; quiescience has been familiar to CG for a
long time.)
I wish you the best of luck producing the set of principles.
Luck is useless. What has helped me was careful analytical study of my
own (often methodical) thinking.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go
-alive from either player's perspective, allowing UNDEFINED where
necessary. For the sake of simplicity, n, m > 2 or < -2 you can replace
by 2 or -2.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/m
Is playing bad moves good for aesthetics? No? Then why call it
aesthetics? Call it perfect / good play. The most "beautiful" stone is
bad if it is dead.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://compu
values if the task is to assess current positions rather than final
scoring positions, in which one value is sufficient.
--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
things as "attack a group for the same of
making an additional 1 point in sente during this particular sequence".
With histograms, you see nothing like this in the near future, I'd guess.
Define 'fight'! (As you understand it for your study purpose.)
--
robert jasiek
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
