Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 09.01.2017 23:03, David Ongaro wrote:
> decisions are normally made subconsciously seconds before we get
> aware of them

Essentially nothing is known how to interpret such neurological 
findings. It is (usually) not like the universe was forcing me 
unexpected subconscious thinking into my conscious mind. My 
topic-dependent thinking occurs because I want to be busy thinking about 
the topic for a long time (such as successive minutes or hours - not 
seconds as in the tests - during a go game). In such a thinking context, 
both subconscious and conscious thinking related to the topic occur with 
countless interactions in both directions (and even occasional level 
changes of subconscious pieces accessible as conscious, but this is not 
so interesting, it is like reading in assembler;) ) Now, if some test 
claims to observe that subconscious thinking preceded conscious 
thinking, this is like making assumptions of excluding parts of 
conscious thinking. As if you wanted to deceive Heisenberg's uncertainty 
relation. Maybe it does play a relevant role in brains. Observation 
affects perception.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[David Ongaro]

> On Jan 9, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:
> 
> On 09.01.2017 07:19, David Ongaro wrote:
> >> accurate positional judgement
>> you also rely on “feelings” otherwise you wouldn’t be able to survive.
> 
> In my go decision-making, feelings / subconscious thinking (other than usage 
> of prior sample knowledge, such as status knowledge for particular shapes) 
> have an only marginal impact. For me, they serve as a preselection filter 
> besides my used methodical preselection filters. In blitz, the impact is 
> larger when time is insufficient for always using the methodical ones.

It is understandable that you believe that. That seems to be one of these 
strong illusions wich are helping survival. But tests have shown that decisions 
are normally made subconsciously seconds before we get aware of them (and 
therefore seconds before we consciously rationalize them). Among others 
John-Dylan Haynes did a lot of interesting related experiments for that. E.g 
see a short summary for two of them at 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT43MogXAjI=youtu.be=8m3s. Don’t be 
distracted by the fact that these where relatively simple experiments, with not 
much reasoning for making a choice involved. E.g. split brain experiments have 
shown that people can rationalize their action with one half of their brain 
while the other half actually did the decision and action for a different 
reason. The scary part is that they are convinced that the rationalization was 
actually the reason for their action. (If needed I can look up references for 
this, but I guess you already heard about these experiments.) 

I’m sure if you could make such a test while playing a Go game you would be 
surprised about the results.

David O.

PS: It should be said that “feeling” was an inaccurate word here, but I gather 
from your answer that you understood what I meant: i.e. the unconscious 
decision process. In fact, when we get aware of a “feeling”, when defined in 
the stricter sense as a product by the "limbic system”, the decision may 
already have been made.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 09.01.2017 07:19, David Ongaro wrote:
>> accurate positional judgement

you also rely on “feelings” otherwise you wouldn’t be able to survive.


In my go decision-making, feelings / subconscious thinking (other than 
usage of prior sample knowledge, such as status knowledge for particular 
shapes) have an only marginal impact. For me, they serve as a 
preselection filter besides my used methodical preselection filters. In 
blitz, the impact is larger when time is insufficient for always using 
the methodical ones.


Another factor is my pruning of reading. I would not describe it as 
"feelings / subconscious thinking" but as "prune according to knowledge 
/ principles AFA time allows, otherwise call my mental random generator 
for deciding what else to prune". I.e., it is a conscious calling of 
random for particular purposes.


Instead of suspecting feelings, read my books
- Positional Judgement 1 - Territory
- Positional Judgement 2 - Dynamics
to better understand why my accurate positional judgement does not need 
feelings / subconscious thinking. Even in ca. 1/3 of my blitz (10' SD) 
games, I can apply it (less frequently per game, OC).


About the only relevant feeling permitted in my go is a contribution to 
the decision on my first move as Black, which may also depend on my mood 
(besides opponent, komi, time, knowledge).


18+ years ago, I used feelings and the like for quite a few decisions 
during the middle game and (early) endgame. Decision by feelings led to 
low winning probability so I decided to overcome them by creating much 
more profound theory, which improved my play and enabled(!) me to 
survive (to use your words) as a go teacher and go book author.


> Mathematically (the approach you seem yourself constrain into)

Reasoned decision-making need not always be low-level / mathematical.

--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Jim O'Flaherty]

David, that's a fantastic and succinct summarization. Tysvm!


On Jan 9, 2017 12:19 AM, "David Ongaro"  wrote:

> On Jan 5, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:
>
>
> On 06.01.2017 03:36, David Ongaro wrote:
>
> Two amateur players where analyzing a Game and a professional player
> happened to come by.
> So they asked him how he would assess the position. After a quick look he
> said “White is
>
> > leading by two points”. The two players where wondering: “You can count
> that quickly?”
>
> Usually, accurate positional judgement (not only territory but all
> aspects) takes between a few seconds and 3 minutes, depending on the
> position and provided one is familiar with the theory.
>
>
> Believe it or not, you also rely on “feelings” otherwise you wouldn’t be
> able to survive.
>
> Some see DNNs as some kind of “cache” which has knowledge of the world in
> compressed form. Because it's compressed it can’t always reproduce learned
> facts with absolute accuracy but on the other hand it has the much more
> desired feature to even yield reasonable results for states it never saw
> before.
>
> Mathematically (the approach you seem yourself constrain into) there
> doesn’t seem to be a good reason why this should work. But if you take the
> physical structure of the world into account things change. In fact there
> is a recent pretty interesting paper (not only for you, but surely also for
> other readers in this list) about this topic: https://arxiv.org/abs/
> 1608.08225.
>
> I interpret the paper like this: the number of states we have to be
> prepared for with our neural networks (either electronic or biological) may
> be huge, but compared to all mathematically possible states it's almost
> nothing. That is due to the fact that our observable universe is an
> emergent result of relatively simple physical laws. That is also the reason
> why deep networks (i.e. with many layers) work so well, even though
> mathematically a one layer network is enough. If the emergent behaviours of
> our universe can be understand in layers of abstractions, we can scale our
> network linearly by the number of layers matching the number of
> abstractions. That’s a huge win over the exponential growth required when
> we need a mathematical correct solution for all possible states.
>
> The “physical laws” for Go are also relatively simple and the complexity
> of Go is an emergent result of these. That is also the reason why the DNNs
> are trained with real Go positions not just with random positions, which
> make up the majority of all possible Go positions. Does that mean the DNNs
> won’t perform well when evaluating random positions, or even just the
> "arcane positions” you discussed with Jim? Absolutely! But it doesn’t have
> to. That’s not its flaw but its genius.
>
> David O.
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[David Ongaro]

On Jan 5, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:
> 
> On 06.01.2017 03:36, David Ongaro wrote:
>> Two amateur players where analyzing a Game and a professional player 
>> happened to come by.
>> So they asked him how he would assess the position. After a quick look he 
>> said “White is
> > leading by two points”. The two players where wondering: “You can count 
> > that quickly?”
> 
> Usually, accurate positional judgement (not only territory but all aspects) 
> takes between a few seconds and 3 minutes, depending on the position and 
> provided one is familiar with the theory.

Believe it or not, you also rely on “feelings” otherwise you wouldn’t be able 
to survive.

Some see DNNs as some kind of “cache” which has knowledge of the world in 
compressed form. Because it's compressed it can’t always reproduce learned 
facts with absolute accuracy but on the other hand it has the much more desired 
feature to even yield reasonable results for states it never saw before.

Mathematically (the approach you seem yourself constrain into) there doesn’t 
seem to be a good reason why this should work. But if you take the physical 
structure of the world into account things change. In fact there is a recent 
pretty interesting paper (not only for you, but surely also for other readers 
in this list) about this topic: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08225 
.

I interpret the paper like this: the number of states we have to be prepared 
for with our neural networks (either electronic or biological) may be huge, but 
compared to all mathematically possible states it's almost nothing. That is due 
to the fact that our observable universe is an emergent result of relatively 
simple physical laws. That is also the reason why deep networks (i.e. with many 
layers) work so well, even though mathematically a one layer network is enough. 
If the emergent behaviours of our universe can be understand in layers of 
abstractions, we can scale our network linearly by the number of layers 
matching the number of abstractions. That’s a huge win over the exponential 
growth required when we need a mathematical correct solution for all possible 
states.

The “physical laws” for Go are also relatively simple and the complexity of Go 
is an emergent result of these. That is also the reason why the DNNs are 
trained with real Go positions not just with random positions, which make up 
the majority of all possible Go positions. Does that mean the DNNs won’t 
perform well when evaluating random positions, or even just the "arcane 
positions” you discussed with Jim? Absolutely! But it doesn’t have to. That’s 
not its flaw but its genius.

David O.

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[terry mcintyre]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px 
#715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white 
!important; } During its training, AlphaGo played many handicap games against a 
previous version of itself, so the team and the program are acquainted with 
handicap play. I don't recall reading any discussion of komi experiments. 
Google's advantage is that they can dynamically spin up bunches of processors 
to try all sorts of experiments, including tournaments designed to test various 
versions, theories, and tweaks. There was some discussion about what to do if 
one could spin up thousands of processr cores on demand. 
There are surely large businesses in China which could do the same. They have 
similar reasons to pursue deep learning and other creative uses of big data and 
supercomputing. 


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


On Thursday, January 5, 2017, 9:36 PM, David Ongaro  
wrote:This discussion reminds me of an incident which happened at the EGC in 
Tuchola 2004 (maybe someone can find a source for this). I don’t remember all 
details but it was about like this:


Two amateur players where analyzing a Game and a professional player happened 
to come by. So they asked him how he would assess the position. After a quick 
look he said “White is leading by two points”. The two players where wondering: 
“You can count that quickly?”, but the pro answered “No, I just asked myself if 
I would like to have black in this position. The answer is no. But with two 
extra Komi for Black it would feel ok.”
So it seems professionals already acquired some kind of “value network” due to 
their hard training, but they also can modify its assessments by taking Komi 
into account. Maybe that's something we also should do, i.e. not only train the 
value network by taking go positions and results into account but also add the 
Komi as an input (the output would still be a simple win/lose result). In that 
way we don’t have to train a different network for each Komi, even though the 
problem getting enough training data for all Komi values still remains.


On Jan 5, 2017, at 11:44 AM, David Ongaro  wrote:


On Jan 5, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Detlef Schmicker  wrote:

Hi,

what makes you think the opening theory with reverse komi would be the
same as with standard komi?

I would be afraid to invest an enormous amount of time just to learn,
that you have to open differently in reverse komi games :)


Thats why I used the comparative adjective “less”. It might not be ideal, but 
still much better than changing the fundamental structure of the opening with 
an extra stone. Furthermore the effect might not as big as you think:

1. The stronger player doesn’t have to play overplays when the handicap is 
correct. If the handicap is correct and if AlphaGo “knows” that is another 
question though… Of course the weaker player might play differently (i.e. more 
safely) but at least that is something he or she can control
2. One could even argue the other way around:  we might see more sound 
(theoretically correct) moves from AlphaGo with reverse Komi. If it's seeing 
itself ahead already during the opening it might resort to slack but safe 
moves. Since it’s still winning we can be left wondering if it was actually a 
good move. But if it does an unusual looking move which it can’t be considered 
an overplay but it’s still winning in the end with reverse Komi there should be 
a real insight to gain.

Still, a reverse Komi handicap is rather big, but it might be the next best 
thing we have without retraining the value network from scratch. Furthermore 
retraining the value network will probably affect the playing style even more.

Thanks,

David O.



Am 05.01.2017 um 10:50 schrieb Paweł Morawiecki:

2017-01-04 21:07 GMT+01:00 David Ongaro :



[...]So my question is: is it possible to have reverse Komi games
by feeding the value network with reverse colors?



In the paper from Nature (subsection "Features for policy/value
network"), authors state:

*the stone colour at each intersection was represented as either
player or opponent rather than black or white. *

Then, I think the AlphaGo algorithm would be fine with a reverse
komi. Namely, a human player takes black and has 7.5 komi. The next
step is that AlphaGo gives 2 stones of handicap but keeps 7.5 komi
(normally you have 0.5).

Aja, can you confirm this?



Also having 2 stone games is not so interesting since it would
reveal less insights for even game opening Theory.



I agree with David here, most insights we would get from even
games. But we can imagine the following show. Some games are played
with a reverse komi, some games would be played with 2 stones (yet,
white keeps 7.5 komi) and eventually the main event with normal
even games to debunk our myths on the game. Wouldn't be super
exciting!?

Best regards, Paweł

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 06.01.2017 03:36, David Ongaro wrote:

Two amateur players where analyzing a Game and a professional player happened 
to come by.
So they asked him how he would assess the position. After a quick look he said 
“White is
> leading by two points”. The two players where wondering: “You can 
count that quickly?”


Usually, accurate positional judgement (not only territory but all 
aspects) takes between a few seconds and 3 minutes, depending on the 
position and provided one is familiar with the theory.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Jim O'Flaherty]

That was a quite elegant way to present the idea. Ty for sharing.

On Jan 5, 2017 8:36 PM, "David Ongaro"  wrote:

> This discussion reminds me of an incident which happened at the EGC in
> Tuchola 2004 (maybe someone can find a source for this). I don’t remember
> all details but it was about like this:
>
> Two amateur players where analyzing a Game and a professional player
> happened to come by. So they asked him how he would assess the position.
> After a quick look he said “White is leading by two points”. The two
> players where wondering: “You can count that quickly?”, but the pro
> answered “No, I just asked myself if I would like to have black in this
> position. The answer is no. But with two extra Komi for Black it would feel
> ok.”
>
> So it seems professionals already acquired some kind of “value network”
> due to their hard training, but they also can modify its assessments by
> taking Komi into account. Maybe that's something we also should do, i.e.
> not only train the value network by taking go positions and results into
> account but also add the Komi as an input (the output would still be a
> simple win/lose result). In that way we don’t have to train a different
> network for each Komi, even though the problem getting enough training data
> for all Komi values still remains.
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2017, at 11:44 AM, David Ongaro  wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Detlef Schmicker  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> what makes you think the opening theory with reverse komi would be the
> same as with standard komi?
>
> I would be afraid to invest an enormous amount of time just to learn,
> that you have to open differently in reverse komi games :)
>
>
> Thats why I used the comparative adjective “less”. It might not be ideal,
> but still much better than changing the fundamental structure of the
> opening with an extra stone. Furthermore the effect might not as big as you
> think:
>
> 1. The stronger player doesn’t have to play overplays when the handicap is
> correct. If the handicap is correct and if AlphaGo “knows” that is another
> question though… Of course the weaker player might play differently (i.e.
> more safely) but at least that is something he or she can control
> 2. One could even argue the other way around:  we might see more sound
> (theoretically correct) moves from AlphaGo with reverse Komi. If it's
> seeing itself ahead already during the opening it might resort to slack but
> safe moves. Since it’s still winning we can be left wondering if it was
> actually a good move. But if it does an unusual looking move which it can’t
> be considered an overplay but it’s still winning in the end with reverse
> Komi there should be a real insight to gain.
>
> Still, a reverse Komi handicap is rather big, but it might be the next
> best thing we have without retraining the value network from scratch.
> Furthermore retraining the value network will probably affect the playing
> style even more.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David O.
>
>
> Am 05.01.2017 um 10:50 schrieb Paweł Morawiecki:
>
> 2017-01-04 21:07 GMT+01:00 David Ongaro :
>
>
> [...]So my question is: is it possible to have reverse Komi games
> by feeding the value network with reverse colors?
>
>
> In the paper from Nature (subsection "Features for policy/value
> network"), authors state:
>
> *the stone colour at each intersection was represented as either
> player or opponent rather than black or white. *
>
> Then, I think the AlphaGo algorithm would be fine with a reverse
> komi. Namely, a human player takes black and has 7.5 komi. The next
> step is that AlphaGo gives 2 stones of handicap but keeps 7.5 komi
> (normally you have 0.5).
>
> Aja, can you confirm this?
>
>
> Also having 2 stone games is not so interesting since it would
> reveal less insights for even game opening Theory.
>
>
> I agree with David here, most insights we would get from even
> games. But we can imagine the following show. Some games are played
> with a reverse komi, some games would be played with 2 stones (yet,
> white keeps 7.5 komi) and eventually the main event with normal
> even games to debunk our myths on the game. Wouldn't be super
> exciting!?
>
> Best regards, Paweł
>
>
>
> ___ Computer-go mailing
> list Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[David Ongaro]

> On Jan 5, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Detlef Schmicker  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> what makes you think the opening theory with reverse komi would be the
> same as with standard komi?
> 
> I would be afraid to invest an enormous amount of time just to learn,
> that you have to open differently in reverse komi games :)

Thats why I used the comparative adjective “less”. It might not be ideal, but 
still much better than changing the fundamental structure of the opening with 
an extra stone. Furthermore the effect might not as big as you think:

1. The stronger player doesn’t have to play overplays when the handicap is 
correct. If the handicap is correct and if AlphaGo “knows” that is another 
question though… Of course the weaker player might play differently (i.e. more 
safely) but at least that is something he or she can control
2. One could even argue the other way around:  we might see more sound 
(theoretically correct) moves from AlphaGo with reverse Komi. If it's seeing 
itself ahead already during the opening it might resort to slack but safe 
moves. Since it’s still winning we can be left wondering if it was actually a 
good move. But if it does an unusual looking move which it can’t be considered 
an overplay but it’s still winning in the end with reverse Komi there should be 
a real insight to gain.

Still, a reverse Komi handicap is rather big, but it might be the next best 
thing we have without retraining the value network from scratch. Furthermore 
retraining the value network will probably affect the playing style even more.

Thanks,

David O.


> Am 05.01.2017 um 10:50 schrieb Paweł Morawiecki:
>> 2017-01-04 21:07 GMT+01:00 David Ongaro :
>> 
>>> 
>>> [...]So my question is: is it possible to have reverse Komi games
>>> by feeding the value network with reverse colors?
>>> 
>> 
>> In the paper from Nature (subsection "Features for policy/value
>> network"), authors state:
>> 
>> *the stone colour at each intersection was represented as either
>> player or opponent rather than black or white. *
>> 
>> Then, I think the AlphaGo algorithm would be fine with a reverse
>> komi. Namely, a human player takes black and has 7.5 komi. The next
>> step is that AlphaGo gives 2 stones of handicap but keeps 7.5 komi
>> (normally you have 0.5).
>> 
>> Aja, can you confirm this?
>> 
>> 
>>> Also having 2 stone games is not so interesting since it would
>>> reveal less insights for even game opening Theory.
>>> 
>> 
>> I agree with David here, most insights we would get from even
>> games. But we can imagine the following show. Some games are played
>> with a reverse komi, some games would be played with 2 stones (yet,
>> white keeps 7.5 komi) and eventually the main event with normal
>> even games to debunk our myths on the game. Wouldn't be super
>> exciting!?
>> 
>> Best regards, Paweł
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___ Computer-go mailing
>> list Computer-go@computer-go.org 
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>> 
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Thomas Rohde]

Thanks, Horace,


On 2017-01-05 at 04:07, Horace Ho  wrote:

> The players and the results (in Chinese):
> 
> [..]

passing this on :-) 


Greetings, Tom
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Paweł Morawiecki]

>
>
> what makes you think the opening theory with reverse komi would be the
> same as with standard komi?
>
> The value network only needs to know a given position of the board and a
piece of information who plays next, whether it is a green player or a red
player. Then it tells you a winning percentage for a green player. Does it
make sense?

Best,
Paweł





> I would be afraid to invest an enormous amount of time just to learn,
> that you have to open differently in reverse komi games :)
>
>
> Detlef
>
> Am 05.01.2017 um 10:50 schrieb Paweł Morawiecki:
> > 2017-01-04 21:07 GMT+01:00 David Ongaro :
> >
> >>
> >> [...]So my question is: is it possible to have reverse Komi games
> >> by feeding the value network with reverse colors?
> >>
> >
> > In the paper from Nature (subsection "Features for policy/value
> > network"), authors state:
> >
> > *the stone colour at each intersection was represented as either
> > player or opponent rather than black or white. *
> >
> > Then, I think the AlphaGo algorithm would be fine with a reverse
> > komi. Namely, a human player takes black and has 7.5 komi. The next
> > step is that AlphaGo gives 2 stones of handicap but keeps 7.5 komi
> > (normally you have 0.5).
> >
> > Aja, can you confirm this?
> >
> >
> >> Also having 2 stone games is not so interesting since it would
> >> reveal less insights for even game opening Theory.
> >>
> >
> > I agree with David here, most insights we would get from even
> > games. But we can imagine the following show. Some games are played
> > with a reverse komi, some games would be played with 2 stones (yet,
> > white keeps 7.5 komi) and eventually the main event with normal
> > even games to debunk our myths on the game. Wouldn't be super
> > exciting!?
> >
> > Best regards, Paweł
> >
> >
> >
> > ___ Computer-go mailing
> > list Computer-go@computer-go.org
> > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> >
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Detlef Schmicker]

Hi,

what makes you think the opening theory with reverse komi would be the
same as with standard komi?

I would be afraid to invest an enormous amount of time just to learn,
that you have to open differently in reverse komi games :)


Detlef

Am 05.01.2017 um 10:50 schrieb Paweł Morawiecki:
> 2017-01-04 21:07 GMT+01:00 David Ongaro :
> 
>> 
>> [...]So my question is: is it possible to have reverse Komi games
>> by feeding the value network with reverse colors?
>> 
> 
> In the paper from Nature (subsection "Features for policy/value
> network"), authors state:
> 
> *the stone colour at each intersection was represented as either
> player or opponent rather than black or white. *
> 
> Then, I think the AlphaGo algorithm would be fine with a reverse
> komi. Namely, a human player takes black and has 7.5 komi. The next
> step is that AlphaGo gives 2 stones of handicap but keeps 7.5 komi
> (normally you have 0.5).
> 
> Aja, can you confirm this?
> 
> 
>> Also having 2 stone games is not so interesting since it would
>> reveal less insights for even game opening Theory.
>> 
> 
> I agree with David here, most insights we would get from even
> games. But we can imagine the following show. Some games are played
> with a reverse komi, some games would be played with 2 stones (yet,
> white keeps 7.5 komi) and eventually the main event with normal
> even games to debunk our myths on the game. Wouldn't be super
> exciting!?
> 
> Best regards, Paweł
> 
> 
> 
> ___ Computer-go mailing
> list Computer-go@computer-go.org 
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> 
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Paweł Morawiecki]

2017-01-04 21:07 GMT+01:00 David Ongaro :

>
> [...]So my question is: is it possible to have reverse Komi games by
> feeding the value network with reverse colors?
>

In the paper from Nature (subsection "Features for policy/value network"),
authors state:

*the stone colour at each intersection was represented as either player or
opponent rather than black or white. *

Then, I think the AlphaGo algorithm would be fine with a reverse komi.
Namely, a human player takes black and has 7.5 komi. The next step is that
AlphaGo gives 2 stones of handicap but keeps 7.5 komi (normally you have
0.5).

Aja, can you confirm this?


> Also having 2 stone games is not so interesting since it would reveal less
> insights for even game opening Theory.
>

I agree with David here, most insights we would get from even games. But we
can imagine the following show. Some games are played with a reverse komi,
some games would be played with 2 stones (yet, white keeps 7.5 komi) and
eventually the main event with normal even games to debunk our myths on the
game. Wouldn't be super exciting!?

Best regards,
Paweł
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Horace Ho]

The players and the results (in Chinese):

第01局：Magist(P)执白 v. 满汉(P)（棋手真名不详），白中盘胜
第02局：Magist(P)执白 v. 燕归来(P)（棋手真名不详），白中盘胜
第03局：圣人(P)（棋手真名不详）执白 v. Magist(P)，黑中盘胜
第04局：Magist(P)执白 v. 卧虎(P)（谢尔豪 ），白中盘胜
第05局：无痕(P)（於之莹）执白 v. Magist(P)，黑中盘胜
第06局：翱翔(P)（李翔宇）执白 v. Magist(P)，黑中盘胜
第07局：重逢时(P)（棋手真名不详）执白 v. Magist(P)，黑中盘胜
第08局：Magist(P)执白 v. 三齐王(P)（韩一洲 ），白中盘胜
第09局：愿我能(P)（孟泰龄）执白 v. Magist(P)，黑胜4目半（黑贴6目半）
第10局：Magist(P)执白 v. 愿我能(P)（孟泰龄），白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第11局：Master(P)执白 v. 风雨(P)（棋手真名不详），白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第12局：Master(P)执白 v. atomy(P)（棋手真名不详），白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第13局：Master(P)执白 v. 远山君(P)（棋手真名不详），白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第14局：斩立决(P)（严在明）执白 v. Master(P)，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第15局：Master(P)执白 v. XIUZHI(P)（朴廷桓），白时间胜（黑贴6目半）
第16局：Master(P)执白 v. 剑术(P)（连笑），白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第17局：Master(P)执白 v. 剑术(P)（连笑），白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第18局：吻别(P)（疑似柯洁）执白v. Master(P)，黑胜5目半（黑贴6目半）
第19局：Master(P)执白 v. 吻别(P)（疑似柯洁），白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第20局：XIUZHI(P)（朴廷桓）执白 v. Master(P)，黑胜5目半（黑贴6目半）
第21局：Master(P)执白 v. 龙胆(P)（陈耀烨 ），白胜5目半（黑贴6目半）
第22局：Master(P)执白 v. 龙胆(P)（陈耀烨），白胜4目半（黑贴6目半）
第23局：abc2080(P)（金志锡）执白 v. Master(P)，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第24局：XIUZHI(P)（朴廷桓）执白 v. Master(P)，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第25局：Master(P)执白 v. XIUZHI(P)（朴廷桓），白胜半目（黑贴6目半）
第26局：dauning(P)（李东勋）执白 v. Master(P)，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第27局：ddcg（范廷钰 ）执白 v. Master(P)，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第28局：愿我能(P)（孟泰龄）执白 v. Master(P)，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第29局：Master(P)执白 v. 拼搏(P)（芈昱廷），白胜半目（黑贴6目半）
第30局：Master(P)执白 v. 930115（唐韦星），白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第31局：Master 执黑 v. black2012（李钦诚），黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第32局：星宿老仙（古力）执黑 v. Master，白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第33局：Master执黑 v. 星宿老仙（古力），黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第34局：Master执黑 v. 我想静静了（党毅飞），黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第35局：若水云寒（江维杰）执黑 v. Master，白胜1目半（黑贴6目半）
第36局：Master执黑 v. 印城之霸（辜梓豪），黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第37局：Master执黑 v. pyh（朴永训） ，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第38局：Master执黑 v. 天选（柁嘉熹），黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第39局：Master执黑 v. jpgo01（井山裕太），黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第40局：愿我能（孟泰龄）执黑 v. Master ，白胜2目半（黑贴6目半）
第41局：airforce9（金志锡）执黑 v. Master ，白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第42局：Master执黑 v. 时间之虫（杨鼎新），共125手，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第43局：Master执黑 v. piaojie（姜东润） ，共165手，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第44局：spinmove（安成浚）执黑 v. Master ，共260手，白胜2目半（黑贴6目半）
第45局：Master执黑 v. 炼心（时越） ，共167手，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第46局：剑过无声（连笑）执黑 v. Master ，共144手，白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第47局：Master执黑 v. 段誉（檀啸），共191手，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第48局：maker（朴廷桓）执黑 v. Master，共270手，白胜1目半（黑贴6目半）
第49局：wonfun（元晟溱）执黑 v. Master ，共222手，白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第50局：潜伏（柯洁）执黑 v. Master ，共178手，白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第51局：周俊勳执黑 v. Master ，共118手，白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第52局：ykpcx（范廷钰）执黑 v. Master，共202手，白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第53局：Master执黑 v. 孔明（黄云嵩），共133手，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第54局：Master执黑 v. 聂卫平，共254手，黑胜7目半（黑贴6目半）
第55局：谜团（陈耀烨；孟泰龄）执黑 v. Master ，共267手，白胜1目半（黑贴6目半）
第56局：Master执黑 v. shadowpow（赵汉乘），共171手，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第57局：Master执黑 v. nparadigm（申真谞），共139手，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第58局：小香馋猫（常昊）执黑 v. Master，共178手，白中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第59局：Master执黑 v. Eason （周睿羊），共161手，黑中盘胜（黑贴6目半）
第60局：古力执黑 v. Master，共235手，白胜2目半（黑贴6目半）

Source: http://tieba.baidu.com/p/4922688212


On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Thomas Rohde  wrote:

>
> On 2017-01-04 at 21:41, Richard Lorentz  wrote:
>
> > Having fallen a bit out of the loop can somebody please update me (us?)
> a little on these 60 games. How strong were the opponents? Are
> some/most/all actually pros? What was the time control? What is the Foxwq
> server?
>
> Many 9d pros, among them Ke Jie, Park Junghwan, Gu Li … see the SGF
> archive that Marcel Grünauer compiled: http://rechne.net/dl/the_
> master_files.zip
>
> 60 won games in a row :-o
>
>
> Greetings, Tom
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Rohde
> Wiesenkamp 12, 29646 Bispingen, GERMANY
> --
> +49 5194 6741 | t...@bonobo.com
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Thomas Rohde]

On 2017-01-04 at 21:41, Richard Lorentz  wrote:

> Having fallen a bit out of the loop can somebody please update me (us?) a 
> little on these 60 games. How strong were the opponents? Are some/most/all 
> actually pros? What was the time control? What is the Foxwq server?

Many 9d pros, among them Ke Jie, Park Junghwan, Gu Li … see the SGF archive 
that Marcel Grünauer compiled: http://rechne.net/dl/the_master_files.zip

60 won games in a row :-o


Greetings, Tom



-- 
Thomas Rohde
Wiesenkamp 12, 29646 Bispingen, GERMANY
--
+49 5194 6741 | t...@bonobo.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Richard Lorentz]

Having fallen a bit out of the loop can somebody please update me (us?) 
a little on these 60 games. How strong were the opponents? Are 
some/most/all actually pros? What was the time control? What is the 
Foxwq server?


Thank you very much!

-Richard


On 01/04/2017 12:07 PM, David Ongaro wrote:
After this unbelievable streak of 60 won games (even though we still 
have to see how it holds up with longer time control) it’s not 
completely unthinkable anymore to play top pros with a handicap. 


___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[David Ongaro]

After this unbelievable streak of 60 won games (even though we still have to 
see how it holds up with longer time control) it’s not completely unthinkable 
anymore to play top pros with a handicap. Sadly because the Komi is fixed for 
the value network it seems the next bigger handicap is 2 stones with Komi for 
white which seems a big jump. Also having 2 stone games is not so interesting 
since it would reveal less insights for even game opening Theory. So my 
question is: is it possible to have reverse Komi games by feeding the value 
network with reverse colors? Or wouldn’t that work because the value network is 
so fine calibrated that it would throw it off if there is one more white stone 
than usual? I guess the policy network and MTSC should have no problems with a 
changed Komi?

Maybe Aja or some other expert for Value networks can answer that?

Thanks

David O.


> On Jan 4, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Jim O'Flaherty  wrote:
> 
> Tysvm for posting that!
> 
> I had predicted it was AlphaGo from the beginning. If there is a competitor 
> emerging, I think we would have seen some sort of publicity around it, if not 
> just to provoke a response with the AlphaGo team.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Janzert  > wrote:
> On 1/2/2017 7:05 AM, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote:
> Hello Paweł,
> 
> There have been another 8 games on Foxwq server:
> ...
> Totally, 38-0. It looks like a kind, indirect (yet powerful), message
> from DeepMind to Chinese Go Association: "Please, let us try a real
> challenge, like 3-handicap games, it does not really make much sense
> to play even anymore".
> 
> So, do you want to say that "Master" might be AlphaGo?
> From the disucssion I thought that "Master" was a chinese bot.
> 
> If Aja is reading: can you enlighten us?
> 
> Cheers, Ingo.
> 
> Looks like we have an official answer in the affirmative
> https://twitter.com/demishassabis/status/816660463282954240 
> 
> 
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org 
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go 
> 
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hello guys,

what shall I say.

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 04. Januar 2017 um 16:11 Uhr
> Von: Janzert 
> ...
> On 1/2/2017 7:05 AM, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote:
> > Hello Paweł, ...

 
> Looks like we have an official answer in the affirmative
> https://twitter.com/demishassabis/status/816660463282954240

This means that I lost my bet with Paweł.
He will get a nice meal in a nice restaurant from me
(probably during the European Go Congress 2017 in Oberhof).

Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Jim O'Flaherty]

Tysvm for posting that!

I had predicted it was AlphaGo from the beginning. If there is a competitor
emerging, I think we would have seen some sort of publicity around it, if
not just to provoke a response with the AlphaGo team.


On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Janzert  wrote:

> On 1/2/2017 7:05 AM, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote:
>
>> Hello Paweł,
>>
>> There have been another 8 games on Foxwq server:
>>> ...
>>> Totally, 38-0. It looks like a kind, indirect (yet powerful), message
>>> from DeepMind to Chinese Go Association: "Please, let us try a real
>>> challenge, like 3-handicap games, it does not really make much sense
>>> to play even anymore".
>>>
>>
>> So, do you want to say that "Master" might be AlphaGo?
>> From the disucssion I thought that "Master" was a chinese bot.
>>
>> If Aja is reading: can you enlighten us?
>>
>> Cheers, Ingo.
>>
>
> Looks like we have an official answer in the affirmative
> https://twitter.com/demishassabis/status/816660463282954240
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Janzert]

On 1/2/2017 7:05 AM, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote:

Hello Paweł,


There have been another 8 games on Foxwq server:
...
Totally, 38-0. It looks like a kind, indirect (yet powerful), message
from DeepMind to Chinese Go Association: "Please, let us try a real
challenge, like 3-handicap games, it does not really make much sense
to play even anymore".


So, do you want to say that "Master" might be AlphaGo?
From the disucssion I thought that "Master" was a chinese bot.

If Aja is reading: can you enlighten us?

Cheers, Ingo.


Looks like we have an official answer in the affirmative
https://twitter.com/demishassabis/status/816660463282954240
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hello Yamato,

> ... This comment was about GoBeta last April.
> 
> If "Master" (or something) is AlphaGo, he should have a strong reason
> not to use the name AlphaGo. So probably Aja cannot answer this, because
> he does not lie.
> 
> By the way, I found this tweet interesting :)
> https://twitter.com/ScienceNews/status/814559161312808965

thanks for the explanation and your "interesting"-sniplet.

By the way: A bet on Master's identity is underway. 
The idea is that the bet is undecided, if the question is not resolved
until the start of the European Go Congress (July 22 - August 06, 2017) 
in Oberhof (Thuringia; near Jena).
The computer go day in the EGC will very likely be Wednesday, August 02.

Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Yamato]

Hello,

On 2017/01/02 21:47, Lukas van de Wiel wrote:
> From the thread we already read Aja's enlightenment:
> 
> /u/emdio pointed out:
> From a previous time in which a bot was suspicious to be AlphaGo:
> "I can confirm it's not AlphaGo or a weaker version of AlphaGo. We
> haven't decided to play AlphaGo online yet, but when the decision is
> made we will use AlphaGo(P) on tygem and AlphaGoBot on KGS.
> Aja"

This comment was about GoBeta last April.

If "Master" (or something) is AlphaGo, he should have a strong reason
not to use the name AlphaGo. So probably Aja cannot answer this, because
he does not lie.

By the way, I found this tweet interesting :)
https://twitter.com/ScienceNews/status/814559161312808965

Yamato
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Paweł Morawiecki]

Ingo,


> So, do you want to say that "Master" might be AlphaGo?
> From the disucssion I thought that "Master" was a chinese bot.
>
> I'd put all my money it's AlphaGo. They were certified by Korean Baduk
Association, hence a Korean flag when playing on Tygem. My personal belief
is that these games
put talks with Chinese Association in a right perspective. All people from
DeepMind always show a great respect towards pro go players, their
dedication and achievements.

Demis tweeted: "*we've been hard at work improving AG, delighted to
announce that more games will be played in early 2017! More details soon". *

But it was 2 months ago. I guess it's been just very hard talks that's why
they are silent. It's hard (for both sides) and propose and accept quite a
handicapped games. Such a powerful show on Tygem/Foxwq, hopefully, makes
matters smoother.

Regards,
Paweł



> If Aja is reading: can you enlighten us?
>
> Cheers, Ingo.
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Lukas van de Wiel]

Hi all:

From the thread we already read Aja's enlightenment:

/u/emdio pointed out:
From a previous time in which a bot was suspicious to be AlphaGo:
"I can confirm it's not AlphaGo or a weaker version of AlphaGo. We
haven't decided to play AlphaGo online yet, but when the decision is
made we will use AlphaGo(P) on tygem and AlphaGoBot on KGS.
Aja"

Cheers and happy new year!
Lukas

On 1/2/17, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hello Paweł,
>
>> There have been another 8 games on Foxwq server:
>> ...
>> Totally, 38-0. It looks like a kind, indirect (yet powerful), message
>> from DeepMind to Chinese Go Association: "Please, let us try a real
>> challenge, like 3-handicap games, it does not really make much sense
>> to play even anymore".
>
> So, do you want to say that "Master" might be AlphaGo?
> From the disucssion I thought that "Master" was a chinese bot.
>
> If Aja is reading: can you enlighten us?
>
> Cheers, Ingo.
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hello Paweł,

> There have been another 8 games on Foxwq server: 
> ...
> Totally, 38-0. It looks like a kind, indirect (yet powerful), message 
> from DeepMind to Chinese Go Association: "Please, let us try a real 
> challenge, like 3-handicap games, it does not really make much sense 
> to play even anymore".

So, do you want to say that "Master" might be AlphaGo?
From the disucssion I thought that "Master" was a chinese bot.

If Aja is reading: can you enlighten us?

Cheers, Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Paweł Morawiecki]

>
> Hi,
>


> The grey box shows the list of 30 games played by
> the "Master bot. All these games were won by the bot!
>
>
There have been another 8 games on Foxwq server:

Game 31: black2012 = Li Qincheng
Game 32: 星宿老仙 = Gu Li
Game 33: 星宿老仙 = Gu Li
Game 34: 我想静静了 = Dang Yifei
Game 35: 若水云寒 = Jiang Weijie
Game 36: 印城之霸 = Gu Zihao
Game 37: pyh = Park Yeonghun
Game 38: 天选 = Tuo Jiaxi
Totally, 38-0. It looks like a kind, indirect (yet powerful), message from
DeepMind to Chinese Go Association: "Please, let us try a real challenge,
like 3-handicap games, it does not really make much sense to play even
anymore". I think it would be much more exciting to see handicap games and
try to measure the difference between Alphago and the current human
knowledge and skills.

Best wishes for New Year,
Paweł




> Ingo.
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Are the AlphaGols coming?

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hello,

here is a link to the German Computer Go forum:
http://www.dgob.de/yabbse/index.php?topic=6381.msg208264#msg208264

The grey box shows the list of 30 games played by
the "Master bot. All these games were won by the bot!

Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go