Maybe I did no explain my point well enough.
The problem with infinite is that we get a better approximation to a
wrong value.
With few simulations we get that value with, say 1/10 error. With an
astronomical amount
of simulations we get the same value with an error of 1e-200, but it's
My contribution to the Java question: I am working in go for
the pleasure and not as much as I would like to. Recently, I
was experimenting with the urgency of a shape as a sorting
method for ab-pruning. I needed to rotate 7x7 masks.
I wrote:
Procedure Rotate90cl (var jm: jeitoMask);
{
Dave Dyer wrote:
Guys, keep your eyes on the prize. If your only problem
is that you need to double your speed, all you have to do
is wait 1.5 years.
It is not twice as fast, if you write the critical parts
in asm its more like 10 times.
like assembly language (or C) is almost completely
I post this question in the form of a problem whose
answer I don't know:
*Problem* : At the given position B loses by 5 pts. He
has only 1 winning move, which is winning a ladder. For
simplification he always has 25 legal moves. The ladder
is 20 ply deep. And, as it is the case with ladders, the
Hideki Kato wrote:
In Nihon Kiin's ELO system(1), 1000 ELO is 1 rank,
The Elo rating is based on two assumptions:
a. The performance of each player in each game is a
normally distributed random variable.
b. All players performance have the same standard
deviation. (This is
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
The best move may be a somewhat risky invasion -
of course one has to assume the partner will not
play perfectly, but everybody does that every time
anyway, right? Otherwise nobody would have any hope
to win and so nobody would play.
I agree. That's easy for humans
Markus Enzenberger wrote:
would it make sense to treat players with handicap
as completely different players? For example, GNU
Go giving one handicap stone would be a different
player and get a rating independent of GNU Go in
an even game?
I like that !! It would give very valuable
Lukasz Lew wrote:
The unification needs that *pass* costs one point.
And this is only modification needed.
Passing when a game is finished is the only
Kami No Itte move we, the mortals, can play.
Probably, all our other moves are suboptimal.
And playing when one should pass, deserves
the most
David Fotland wrote:
Most of the world plays be Japanese rules, so any commercial program
must implement Japanese rules.
I totally agree.
A strong chinese player using chinese rules will pick up a point or two
during the dame filling stage when playing a strong japanese player. The
Chiense
Hi Don,
I know of players who thought Go might be an interesting game, but
gave up quickly when they realized they could never play by Japanese
rules.
I am not saying the opposite, and again, I think the ideal rules for
computer championships today are Chinese, but without penalizing
pass
Hi
Today computer tournaments should be played under Chinese
as, I think, most agree. This is a thread about how could
Japanese rules be implemented.
Open question 1: I think dame has to be filled. Programs like
gnugo, even old versions, can to that in fractions of a second
per move. Filling
Robert Jasiek wrote:
executed solely by the programs versus executed by supervising
assistance (like the programmers, software, or referees, etc.)
Thats what I suggest: executed by supervising assistance, perfect
or not. I think its the only way. Expecting all the programs to
agree is not very
Hi, Don
Don Dailey wrote:
v + sqrt((2*log(t))/(10*n)) ..
.. n the number of simulations of this move
1. Does that mean the number in any branch?
Do you store an array with the number of times
each move is played, no matter in what branch?
2. Do you have some explanation for this expression?
Way off topic, on behalf of physical evidence of the dimension of universe:
In an n-dimensional universe any radiation that propagates under
common circumstances:
1. Conservation of energy
2. Constant speed
3. Isotropy (same intensity in all directions)
satisfies:
At a distance d from the
Arend Bayer wrote:
. . without ever believing anything that some of the strong go players
(some a lot stronger than me) have to say.
Please, don't think that. I am sure there is more people in this list who,
like myself, do not think computer go will do it through global search
only. The
Nick Apperson wrote:
There are certain times when this technique is highly useful. ...
imagine a board with two walls down the middle bordering on each other
I agree. We have to divide the board to create strong programs!
But division is a very complicated subject. In the isolated areas UCT
Matt Gokey wrote:
But what are some of the reasons MC is not even better?
1-Since MC engines don't deal with tactics directly, they're not likely
going to play tactical sequences well for low liberty strings, securing
eye space, cutting and connecting, ko fights, or ladders, etc.
2-Also because
Magnus Persson wrote:
This is not a problem for scalability for MC/UCT. It just
means that a program ..
You are right. I didn't mean it is not scalable, of course
it is. What I mean is complexity is not, as one could
expect, about ~boardsize^4. (The square of legal moves
times the square of
As Antoine de Maricourt says, this weakens the key.
I think it is a serious problem and it is a dangerous answer to a small
question. I compute hashes and patterns for database lookup eight
at a time, which is faster (much more optimizable) than one
after the other. Then I also use the smallest
Peter Drake wrote (3 times):
Exception in thread main ...
. . . and 91.449 bytes later . . .
... (ObjectOutputStream.java:1369)
I studied the log file in depth and the problem is . . .
. . . (you guessed) using Java ;-)
Jacques.
BTW. I store this list. If you need your log file in the
Erik van der Werf wrote:
And then we get another small questions with a
dangerous answer...
1. What makes a question big or small is not a personal
preference, but the number of millions times it happens
during a game.
1a. Database lookup. Happens very few times (Unfortunately,
I must
Hi Erik
And what distinguishes database look up from things like transposition
table look up? Why wouldn't one use database look up during tree
search?
The interest in rotation/mirror. In database search, what is good for
a position is good for the mirror/rotation. In tree search, rotation
of
David Doshay wrote (on behalf of the 3x3 block of pixels
applied repeatedly):
But if done all the way to just one pixel it will show the winner.
Shouldn't that require some kind of error propagation? In dithering
techniques, you count the error produced, because it is not the same
to count
Magnus Persson wrote:
... it is impossible to make eyes when attacks on the eyes
has so many directions to escape. Every reasonable well
played game will end in seki.
I totally agree. In 2D a free stone has 4 liberties. In 3D, 6. In nD, 2n.
The higher n, the less interesting. You could give
Ray Tayek wrote:
it's also hard to see why 21x21 would be boring (i
can see 17x17 being too simple in some sense).
There is also the length of a game. 21x21 is 22% bigger
in terms of cells. Professional players can work two
days on a 19x19 game. Making the board bigger would
probably make
Hello igo:
igo wrote (on behalf of Making the board bigger would probably make the
game
weaker for humans. I presume the day a computer is world champion,
increasing
board size would give the computer even more advantage.):
I presume exact the opposite way.
Of course, who knows. This is
Hello Jason
I think what you are trying to do can be done more easily.
A. You have a Bernoulli random variable whose result is 0 or 1
following an unknown probability p. (Excuse me for explaining
obvious things, this is for anyone who reads it.) You want to
estimate p from a random sample. The
Hello,
Just an explanation on something I may have explained badly. I see
we agree in the fundamental.
Correcting bias in that estimate should lead to
better sampling.
This is usually called continuity correction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_correction. The estimator
is not
In CGT the temperature is the difference between the value if you play
and the value if you pass. The name question should be answered by a
native English speaker, but I guess it is an common use of the word hot.
Let's call it hotness ;-)
Jacques.
Hi Yoshii
I have some questions about your program.
1. Is this a complete go engine? I have renamed the gnugo.exe file
in the /exe directory and the program no longer works. If it is not
an engine, what is it?
2. The program has a 368 Mb file named Tree_Set in the /exe
directory, the pattern
Hi Don
Could you provide some minimum protocol documentation so that we do not
have to use any scripting language? The tcl script seems very simple. Is it
possible to just open greencheeks.homelinux.org:6867, send login and then
read/write commands? This way everyone would be free to implement
Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it
is standard for 19x19 or 9x9?
For 19x19 I find it a little too fast.
I would prefer
fastest: 4 sec/move (x240 moves) = 16 min
slowest: 30 sec/move (x240 moves) = 2 hours
I would like to try both. Usually fast because,
as you pointed, you get useful
Hellwig Geisse wrote:
I just finished the translation of the old TCL
script cgosGtp.tcl to plain C . . .
Thanks Hellwig . I will try your program tomorrow.
I prefer hacking C than tcl because its more transparent.
I see what the tcl sends, but I don't know what details it
may hide, and these
Sylvain Gelly wrote:
You should also know that we never claimed that MoGo plays 9x9
go near the level of a professional go player, . . .
Just curious: Do 9x9 professionals exist? When we say professional
we mean 19x19 professional. Of course, there must be a correlation.
One expects an
Don Dailey wrote (about big/small wins)
It actually surprises me that go players care about this ...
One difference with chess is that you don't play chess after
the game is over. The comparison could be: the king is
captured, the loser keeps playing and then the winner
gives the queen for
Hello Sylvain
Sylvain Gelly wrote:
If the program blundered as you said and still wins, it means
that the program already won much earlier in the game.
You are totally right. I said that in my post already. But what the user
thinks is: 1. He was behind, but not desperately behind. 2. The
Hello Don
Don Dailey wrote:
Many people DO play chess after the game is over. They
continue to play a game long after they could have
resigned.
My example wasn't very good but I meant over literally.
= The king is captured (changing the rules a little).
How does Japanese make any
Darren Cook wrote:
All except joseki-knowledge is board-size independent.
Maybe human player's adapt to different board sizes without
even noticing. But if you try to model strategy with algorithms
it is totally board size dependent.
The extreme case is 5x5 where black 3,3 claims the four
Don Dailey wrote:
I have this idea that perhaps a good evaluation function could
replace the play-out portion of the UCT programs.
I thought about something similar but only for initializing the
counters: introduce 10 fake playouts and estimate the number of
wins by a function returning
Weston Markham wrote:
1. Uniform playouts, as used in practice, are not really uniform over
all legal go moves. Generally, pass moves are excluded until
necessary, and moves that fill eyelike points are excluded. So, I
assume that when you use the word legal, you mean admissible within
Thanks Sylvain.
Sylvain Gelly wrote:
The results are that in order to keep the same winning rate, you have to
increase the number of simulations by something a little larger than
linear
in the board area. From 9x9 to 13x13, you need something like 3 times
more
simulations for the same
Christoph Birk wrote:
I am sure that Daniel is wrong here ... 2 kyu difference is more like
80% likelyhood of win.
That depends on strength. Between a 20 and 22 kyu, it is even lower. But
in professional
play Daniel should be right. Note that 2 steps means 2 stones handicap.
It is clear
Remi Munos wrote:
.. only when the tree is very smooth, ie. when the branches that
appear good (from obtained rewards so far) are actually good and
the branches that appear bad are truly bad.
Go is a territorial game. I.e. an accumulative game, therefore
when you loose territory you could
Heikki Levanto wrote:
I think it is better to stick to 9x9 as the beginners tournament,
where it is easy to test new ideas in quick games, and 19x19 as the
serious tournament where we can see how good computers are at playing
the game like we humans do.
I agree 100%. Other board sizes are
We all think about UCT all day long, ;-) but universal time is called
UTC. The acronym is far from obvious, because:
The International Telecommunication Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union
wanted Coordinated Universal Time to have a single abbreviation for
Lukasz Lew wrote:
Is libego too complicated? Do You have problems with compilation?
Or You are not comfortable with the GNU license? Any other reason?
I only wanted to compare performance ( and see what good ideas
you had ;-) ) but could not compile libego. Neither with Microsoft
Visual
Hola, Álvaro:
Álvaro Begué wrote:
Could not compile libego is not a very helpful error message. What
exactly did the compiler complain about? My guess is that you don't
have the required boost libraries installed.
Yes. It must be that. I didn't know about boost libraries. Where can I
find
Hola, Eduardo
Eduardo Sabbatella wrote:
Take a look at:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/javago
I get a This project has not yet created any file
release packages. message at the mentioned URL.
In one of your recent posts you mentioned data mining
and that is what I am interested to see how
Heikki Levanto wrote:
I am sure there is a mathematically sound way to measure
how symmetric the evaluation is, but my math is a bit rusty,
so I am asking if someone can come up with a good way. After
that, I'm asking if various programmers would be willing to
run this test, and publish the
steve uurtamo wrote:
true, and a good point. time management other than attempting
to equally divide remaining time among the expected number of
remaining moves (which itself isn't so easy to estimate) is
complicated.
But that is so much better than human time management!
If the expected
terry mcintyre wrote:
Computer Go play in general is nowhere close to dan-level play,
but a computer program can read out smaller tactical problems
with a very high level of accuracy.
That is true. Computers can analyze closed positions as Thomas
Wolf's go tools at dan level, but ..
.. If
George Dahl wrote:
Is it still cheating if the program learns and discover's
the patterns itself? Then isn't it just precomputing a few
things?
I agree. Many chess and go grand masters, e.g. Capablanca
are supposed to have learned the game as children by watching
others play. I do intensive
Hi, Magnus
Magnus Persson wrote:
Weak tactics is a problem of the playouts in my opinion.
UCT as a general search method has thus little to do with
ladders and other game specific details. If there are no
tactical mistakes in the playouts the problems disappear.
Also tactics has a large
Don Dailey wrote:
I have posted before about the evils of trying to extract
knowledge from human games. I don't think it is very effective
compared to generating that knowledge from computer games for
several reasons.
I would agree if we could have quality games played by computers.
In
Peter Drake wrote:
1) If the computation necessary to find better moves is too
expensive, performing many dumb playouts may be a better investment.
2) If the playouts are too deterministic, and the moves are merely
pretty good, the program may avoid an important move and thus
misjudge
terry mcintyre wrote:
Lately, I've been studying joseki, and I find that it's hard to really
know a joseki until you know why non-joseki moves are bad - and why moves
which are locally joseki may be bad in relation to other stones on the
board.
No doubt. That is the most complicated part. I
Except for the relation between not finding 9x9 games
which is *not* real go, you can find as many 19x19 games
as you want, I agree with Chrilly.
Let's accept it. We are amateurs, all except those who
are paid by some University to research on go. And even
some of them are, because a serious go
Hi, Don
I can find arguments to disagree. I think what makes humans homo
sapiens is reasoning, not the ability to compute numerical simulations.
As a human (I am one) I feel disappointed when the explanation I get for
a best move is after x millions of simulated matches it proved to be
the
Brian Slesinsky wrote :
When you favor defense (or attack) you may think: This is unbiased
since some times it favors black and other times it favors white But
the fact is when black is in danger at the root of the tree, it is in
danger in most of the tree, therefore the trick gets the
Brian Slesinsky wrote:
And this would mean that a position where black is in trouble
would look stronger than in a random playout (due to black
playing well only for this kind of situation) which would make
it harder to tell which positions are actually good.
Or in general, an improvement
Jason House wrote:
I run some really dumb bots online that play perfectly fine blitz games
(10s/move) with Chinese rules and it still drives humans insane because the
computer doesn't stop playing. People resign won games in endgame because
they can't take it. There is some value in reducing
The word in AI I don't feel conformable with is Artificial, not
Intelligence. I use _Abstract_ Intelligence (also AI) as a replacement.
Have you ever heard of artificial aerodynamics (applicable to planes but
not to birds) or artificial thermodynamics (the same). I understand that
AI is the
Hideki Kato wrote:
Creativity here is, to generate a new method by combining methods
the system already has, in order to solve a problem.
That is creativity for the job of designing algorithms. Playing
go, creativity is finding moves _that work_ that nobody would have
thought of.
I think
Chrilly Donninger wrote:
I think poker is more difficult than Go and of course chess.
Poker can be analyzed well by (even naif) Monte Carlo methods.
Of course, the fact that you get a better estimate than any
human could dream of, won't necessarily make you win.
This common misconception can
Poker can be analyzed well by (even naif) Monte Carlo methods.
How?
Simulation! Whatever evaluation you need and don't know how to
compute because it is too complex for easy formulas can be
simulated.
This applies to the probability of winning, but also on the
betting decisions (call,
Hi Chrilly:
You have mentioned go in hardware twice recently and I have, knowing
that you have experience in hardware development, some questions:
1. What should be implemented? In your Hydra cluster I have read you
implemented mobility, and somewhere you proposed something like
influence. Can
I agree with all those who say it is important, but there is some
precision to be made:
As a player you are as strong as your weakest link because you are
punished for your mistakes.
As a programmer you are a strong as your strongest link. You know that
mistakes are just mistakes, as long
Thank you Sylvain!
It works fine for me. A very good sparring strong and so different in style!
You mean that with the .dll in WINDOWS\system32 that goes further? I
thought that the .dll in the same directory as the .exe was enough.
Copy/pasting from Microsoft's API reference:
The function
Cenny Wenner wrote:
Care to elaborate on what you mean by scores here and how they are
similar to the 9x9 equivalence?
I guess Dave is using Bradley Terry scores. This idea was introduced by
Rémi Coulom in
Computing Elo Ratings of Move Patterns in the Game of Go The paper is
available on the
Heikki Levanto wrote:
Even if a new proposed standard would have many benefits,
obvious to everyone (which I have not yet seen), I would
stuill urge people to consider those benefits carefully,
and to weigh them against the problems that arise from
having two incompatible standards.
I
Bob Myers wrote:
Many of those complaining about XML don't seem to really know too much about it.
That is exactly my point. I don't know and I don't want to know!
SGF is fine. It has been stable for years because there is no problem at all.
Should we find a problem, there is a
Don Dailey wrote:
Of course that's better, but I'm talking about a quick and
dirty solution. I may never implement handicap games since it's
tricky with ELO ratings.
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is
too strong, Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes
Solved!
It is working now. The problem was the tcl script does not
pass all remaining parameters to the called application
(gnugo in the example). To solve this, the command line
should be delimited with a quote char.
tcl cgos3.tcl testingTCL password E:\\GO\\PROGRAMS\\GnuGo\\gnugo37
--mode
Don Dailey wrote:
My Go program doesn't use any libraries except the standard C
libraries.
I agree at 99.9% !! The only exception in my case is SFMT.
http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~m-mat/MT/SFMT/index.html
SFMT is 100% clean C software, easy to compile, easy to use and free.
A good
Hello
I was waiting till someone restarts, but nobody seemed to notice.
CGOS was hanging yesterday morning (European time) with 3 games
4849..4851 where no black engine placed any stone.
If black restarted (one of the black bots was mine) it lost on time because
the 30 minutes had been used.
Raymond Wold wrote:
Do you have anything to back this up? I was under the impression that
most decent assembly programmers agreed that they can't compete with the
best C compilers.
Absolutely NOT.
Only the typical, perhaps 99.9% of the programs, made of: transfers,
conditionals, integer
Christoph Birk wrote:
I don't think 2200 ELO on the 9x9 CGOS is equivalent
to 'high dan-level' play.
Neither do I. In fact the whole kyu/dan rating system applies
only to 19x19. 9x9 is not deep enough to have have so many ranks.
On a 9x9 board an average amateur beats a pro with handicap 3.
Lars wrote:
Anyone of you have similar or other experiences with the algorithm?
I use at runtime the same Bradley-Terry formulas Remí introduces
in his paper. That is a huge advance compared to naif urgency
scores because it gives a measure of how hard it was to win
for a move candidate. But I
Edward de Grijs wrote:
Can someone help me with this problem, for which I cannot
find a solution: I am trying to run MoGo in an automatic
way, using the cygwin toolkit.
I guess you are trying to do this in Windows and using
the Windows binary. If this is the case, you don't need
any library.
Dave Dyer wrote:
In cases where the good moves are the obvious ones,
you've found them anyway.
Ok. Here I agree.
In other cases, you prune them away.
You are not really pruning, just postponing. Of course
you may overlook moves of genius, who doesn't? But
if your probabilities are
David Stern wrote:
Akihiro's talk has finally been put online at:
http://content.digitalwell.washington.edu/msr/external_release_talks_12_05_2005/15004/lecture.htm
Good lecture.
Is there a link to a binary (or source code) somewhere ?
I can't find any TsumeGo Explorer website. At
Thank you, Harri.
It sounds promising. I will have a look at that.
Jacques.
I coded algorithm based for that representation, it really looks another
awesome thing worth of investigating.
Planning to use that for at least small board search investigations as it has
quite much power.
That
Nick Wedd wrote:
In one of the British Championship Match games, a bit over ten years
ago, Zhang Shutai made an illegal ko move against Matthew Macfadyen, and
immediately conceded that he had lost the game.
Is the game record available? I am interested because I have only found 2
situations
Ben Lambrechts wrote:
Now I got the following problem: how to rotate/mirror the board for a
unique representation.
Both are the same board, but has anyone made an algorithm that rotates
the board or an area of the board in a unique way?
I don't need the move order, just the snapshot of the
Don Dailey wrote:
You can use Zobrist hashing for maintaining all 8 keys incrementally,
but you probably need a fairly good reason to do so. Incrementally
updating of 1 key is almost free, but 8 might be noticeable if you are
doing it inside a tree search or play-outs.
Yes. Don is
Forrest Curo wrote (quoting David Fotland):
for example, go books make a big deal about where to extend along the
side, or when to play in one corner or another, but the difference between
these various moves is usually only a few points.
The difference between similar-appearing various moves
The problem is avoiding that an inferior program wins a lost position
on time extending the number of moves. If you could choose, what side
would you prefer to be? As a human, there is no doubt. But as a program
it is even better: the strongest program. Because computers can play faster
than
Hi..
My gtp program does not receive any time_left commands. I have checked
that the command is listed without mistakes in list_commands. I even
tried CGOS 9x9 and I get the same sequence.
Jacques.
--
This is a 19x19 game start (after
Hi Don
The client does not sent time_left unless time_settings is also
implemented.So your engine must also implement time_settings which
is needed to inform your program of the level it will be playing at.
I do implement time_settings. The server only sends a list_commands at the
Hi Don
I noticed that your list is upper-case. This might be the problem. I
don't remember if GTP is case sensitive or not, but I'm pretty sure
cgos requires lower case in these commands.
Thank you. That was the problem. It was uppercase. To make it
case insensitive, I convert all input to
Don Dailey wrote:
My suggest to Olivier is to compromise and set time
control 20 minutes per side and give 1 second gift.
That's good for me. Until now, I have been running tests
and gnugo clones just to support the server, but I will
start serious work soon. I have some time for computer
I think you are right about the tclkit exe. I used the one that the
instruction page linked, which does throw up a GUI if you run it with
no args.
I wonder if it even works.
It appears to be a way to cripple the server.
It does work. I have played over 600 games with it. It does not
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.
I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for me,
as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)
The question is Why do you do it?
a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to
Michael Wing wrote:
In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
would lose 1.5 ELO points.
In programs that somehow maintain lists of legal moves
or even probability distribution functions over the legal
moves, avoiding suicide is
Hi Michael
Another cost is undo. Superko requires undo, unless
you want store a hash value with each chain of stones.
I am not sure exactly what undo costs, but lets say
5% to 10%.
Well, every implementation is different. In its slowest
mode, my board stores information about neighbor stones
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
the 19x19 CGOS ranking page is back (but might be still unstable)
and Leela seemingly performs quite well.
The crosstables will come back soon also.
The crosstables are back, but the sgf archives ar not.
I get:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access
Hideki Kato wrote:
It's rather odd. I'm checking the log file and then I will check the
source code to see if I have some artificial limits in there.
Why odd? It all depends on the bias or policy of simulations. If
there is a flaw in the policy, the score will converses to the score
I don't think only uniformly random playouts will scale to
perfection because what we need for playouts is not just a simple
average of final scores but a maximum (in negmax sense) score. It
should be the perfect evaluation function.
In other words, as MC simulation is a way to get an
Dave Hillis wrote:
I've noticed this in games on KGS; a lot of people lose games
with generous time limits because they, rashly, try to keep up
with my dumb but very fast bot and make blunders.
What Don says about humans scaling applies to humans making
an effort to use the time they have,
I mentioned nakade in a list including not filling own eyes. Perhaps,
not filling own eyes is a simpler example:
| . . . . . . .
| . # # . # . .
| . O # . # . .
| O O O . # # .
| # # O O O # .
| . # # . . . .
---
(Unless I made a mistake: Black to play and a1 is the only move
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
